This explains a great deal…
The dumb get confident, while the intelligent get doubtful. That’s the conclusion that David Dunning and Justin Kruger came to when studying people’s perceptions of their own talents. What has now become known as the Dunning-Kruger effect helps describe why lay people often act as experts and inept pollies get our votes.
June 30th, 2010 at 5:16 am
I don’t know how he came up with that conclusion. People that have never done something or don’t know how to do something just think it is easier than it looks so they are confident they can do it too, then once they try it the realize how hard it is, it’s just human nature. That is why stock car racing is so popular, people think that just because the car resembles the one they drive they could drive one too, so they put themselves in the seat every Sunday. Maybe the real study was to see what condescending arrogant liberals take on the study would be.
June 30th, 2010 at 8:47 am
thanks again for your condescending arrogant wrong wing nut job take
June 30th, 2010 at 9:37 am
my pleasure
June 30th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
That was great. Thanks you two, exactly the laugh I needed right now.
Shcb’s comment was pretty much what I was thinking, but I’d just simplified the article in my mind as “yes it makes intuitive sense that people unaware of the scope of things will think things are simple.” That’s where I’d have left it, not much value in posting a comment like that so I didn’t. (Yes shcb, liberals actually do think with slightly complex ideas and words like “intuitive”, it saves time rather than having to equate everything in terms of stock car analogies.)
But where shcb excels is throwing fire on the oil. Adding a “condescending arrogant liberals” comment as if he were talking at a condescending arrogant republican Tea Party was both insightful and inciteful. Well done.
But yet Enky recognizes the ironic hypocracy, and shcb goes on to acknowledge it.
Perfect. You guys have made my Canada Day long weekend and it’s only just begun.
ell sure, that’s intuitiveit in my Perfect.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Garbled text at end is meaningless tails of prior edits. Wish I could spell hypocricy, then I’d feel better about correcting other people’s spelling.
June 30th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXIE2uOdnkQ
why indeed
June 30th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
The arrogant remark was directed at JBC, you Canadians don’t seem to be arrogant, Enky is just a hateful bastard but he’s our hateful bastard. Just an observation. But yes Knarls I made a conscious decision to toss a bit of petrol on the ole campfire, makes folks jump back a bit, knocks the edge off the day’s alcohol consumption, good fun.
July 6th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Couple interesting cases going on now, the Justice department whitewashing the Black Panthers voter intimidation case and the Obama administration taking Arizona to court for enforcing the law. Racism is alive and well in the Obama administration.
July 6th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
zzzzzzzz
oh I thought you were talking about the ‘black panther paramilitary squads’ hoax that you wwnjs tried to gin up (they were actually a dance troupe, lol)
or are you talking about this moron? (note not a moran)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
ps – note how many times the word “n!gger” comes up in the comments…
you stay classy wwnjs, take the high road to the old oak tree and hang em high
dumbass with stick is asked to leave and he does. Case closed. The other guy stood around for a while being harassed by bedwetting wwnjs, then iirc he left too. He was a poll watcher btw and lived in the building. No violence, no harsh words, just a wwnj saying he felt intimidated by a guy with a cane or stick or whatever. The scary scary black guy talks very calmly with the bed wetter, then turns his back on teh stupid. Oh horrors! Didn’t seem like the girl hanging around the doorway felt in any way intimidated.
Note also how the guy with the camera starts out saying ‘dude you got my back’? So he and at least one other wwnj come running up with camera and saying how intimidated they feel. Black guy goes ‘pshaw’ turns his back and ignores the hysterics.
zzzzzzzz
No one should be intimidated from voting. Ever. There have been many reports of wwnjs – armed to the teeth with real guns, not a cheerleader’s baton – intimidating hispanic voters in various parts of the country. And like there is absolutely no history whatsoever of white people intimidating black people from voting? dumbass shouldn’t be glowering at anyone armed with so much as a pencil around a voting booth. It’s the law iirc.
I wasn’t there, neither were you. The authorities looked into it and there wasn’t anything there. cue wwnj bedwetter outrage in 3… 2… 1
July 6th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“Racism is alive and well in the Obama administration.”
Hahaha, it’s like the pot calling the kettle a mud hut person.
I wonder what Dunning and Kruger would think of your “understanding” of their research. It seems to fall well within the realm of their studies.
July 6th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
what Smith said (it’s shorter…)
July 6th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Ah Enky you’re such a dweeb. Yup those black panthers are just a bunch of good hearted community organizers, just out there helping the little ole ladies get up the stairs, that’s why they had the night stick, you put the stick under granny’s arms and you can just pick her right up. The thug didn’t leave when asked, he left when the police escorted him off the property.
Here’s another one; after the election Loretta King introduced Attorney General Holder, she said “I can’t tell you how exciting it is to go to work every day, and look up at the photos, and see that we now have two black men running the country”. I guess she forgot about a few thousand Senators, Representatives, judges, governors and state representatives. They happen to be a cross section of all races, religions, sexes and sexual orientation. They are just Americans. Now imagine if a Republican had gotten up on that stage during the Bush administration and said “I’m so glad we have a couple white guys running this country!” Was Ms. King fired? Demoted? Chastised? No, she went on to be instrumental in the dismissal of the Black Panther case. It’s alive and well.
July 6th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Smith, read what Dunning and Kruger said, not JBC’s take. There were a few words in there that JBC keyed on, not the meaning of the study.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Yeah, I’m betting I’ve read more of their research than you have.
You are aware that this is not attributed to JBC, right? If you cannot comprehend a byline, why should I trust your ability to understand research? Dunning-Kruger in action?
July 7th, 2010 at 5:29 am
I’ll be darn, you are right, it fit JBC’s mo so well I didn’t read who posted it. It fits Enky’s as well though, find a few key words that fit your bigotry and bamo! Its gotta be right. JBC has been using that same tactic with the global warming scam, if the article says :
a) people that aren’t convinced of the severity of global warming or think it is a scam are stupid.
b) the article compares them to creationists
c) Ties them to conservatives and/or Fox News
Then it must be printed, even if the conclusions of the writer of the article don’t match the article that writer was referring to, as in this case.
By the way, I’ve never heard of these people before, but I can read, I don’t have any problem with the research, I thought that made a lot of sense, it was the analysis of the interview I thought was way off base, and by extension Enky’s inclusion here.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:48 am
lolz
so… I’m an angry bigot because I disagree with you and refuse to let you spam the comments with wwnj nonsense? whtvr…
What makes this so funny is wwnj’s clear lack of understanding (or reading skills): I posted the link, not jbc. I copied and pasted the first paragraph of the article, it isn’t jbc’s or my ‘take’. It just shows how you didn’t read the article, already disagreed with it (in your expert opinion) and it just proves (in your tiny mind) that libs is teh stupid. Project much?
lolz indeed
hey did you catch rush limpdick saying Obama is causing the Great Recession as “payback”? talk about a lack of memory: bush and the Rs cratered our economy, bailed out the big banks, bailed out the auto companies and f!cked up two wars (one good, one bad). All while having the worst job creation record of any modern president. But if it aint fixed in 16 to 18 months, well then the clean up crew caused it? Seriously stupid.
Loretta King is justifiably proud that a black man is President and another is AG. But to your microcephalic mind, this is racism. Another way to look at it is bush f!cked up so badly that a black man named Barack Hussain Obama was elected president (over gramps and caribou barbie). That must really sting to you racist nutjobs. Evidently still does…
July 7th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Well let’s see, you didn’t notice I was attributing this to JBC until Smith noticed.
I read the article and the interview, the two don’t jive, you posted it and didn’t and don’t seem to disagree with it so I guess it is “your take”
It is fine for Ms. King to be proud of her kind to be president, I was proud of Bush and Reagan being president, they were my kind, not racial but geographical and philosophical, but her statement is inappropriate, not over the top “I hate the white man” racist, but not appropriate in that setting where she had time to prepare her remarks. Since she had the time to think it through it shows her true colors, no pun intended. The reaction or lack there of the administration is just one example of the general thought process of this administration. It’s fine, we have had racist presidents before, hell, most of them were probably racist to one degree or another, this one is just a little more and a little more blatant than the others, but since it is racism pointed in the right direction for political correctness it is left alone.
Sadly this administration isn’t just leaving their racism to comments, they acting on it and hurting individuals with their actions.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:29 am
I noticed because you assumed something that was incorrect (fairly typical for wwnjs), jbc didn’t post his ‘take’ on anything in this thread. oh, and I noticed before Smith commented because I can read things and actually comprehend them without the extremist wrong wing nut job distortion that warps your view of reality.
Calling Loretta King’s comment racist is even beyond your whole mud hut people schtick. You just don’t get it (see above about wwnj colored glasses). All Americans should be proud that we elected Obama, he has done a decent job so far at cleaning up the messes the wwnjs have made (but could do a lot better tbh). However, I am very disappointed Dick Cheney isn’t in jail. Yet.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:30 am
…like protecting the civil liberties of Hispanics in Arizona?
(That’s a sincere question, not a statement.)
July 7th, 2010 at 10:31 am
my comment was meant to follow shcb’s post.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Knarls,
So how are the civil liberties of Hispanics in Arizona being harmed? If they are in the country legally, there is no problem, what is wrong with upholding the law?
Enky, to your last paragraph… Huh???? “at least unemployment isn’t 15%” and yet we were told if we didn’t elect Democrats unemployment might reach 10%, oops, it did. I guess you didn’t read my third paragraph.
July 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Why not ask someone who was there:
we take you now to Nov 4, 2008
So I wonder what sort of baiting went on? Do you suppose this band of gallant McCain supporters might have used a racial epithet or two? hmmmm? nah
;)
The panther ‘dweeb’ (did I use it right? haven’t used that word since high school if memory serves) should not have been standing in front of a polling place with any sort of stick. The panthers are the black equivalent of the kkk, only perhaps a smidgen less violent/racist/execrable. However, judging by the white girl on her cellphone walking around chatting while the whole! terrible! incident! went on, there doesn’t seem to be much of anything there.
Show me one video of Mr Super Scary Black Dude harassing a white person. Seems to me he was the one being harassed (rightly so). If he had tossed the stick into his car or in a trash can, he could stand there all day in his silly get up. This is why camera phones were invented. Just make sure you don’t film the cops any more: they’ll arrest you.
So to sum up, in this corner we have centuries of enslavement, voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, murder, bombings, lynchings and mayhem by white supremacist/racist groups. Some of which continues to this day… And in this corner we have one dweeb with a stick who left the polling place when asked. I can already tell where you stand wwnj: way out on the anti-mudhut people right wing of Reality.
Yes, please, keep braying about this Very Important Issue.
It’s a winner with the wwnj crowd.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
shcb,
One thing I take for granted living in a free society is that I can go out in public and as long as I’m not doing anything wrong I do not have to fear authorities messing with my blissful mental mind trips. I like that and have always thought it was one of the things we fought world war two for, to ensure we were not subjected to unreasonable searches and detentions. If I understandt the Arizona law, and I know very little about it, the cops can stop anyone for no reason and demand that they show proof of being in the states legally. Is it a law that you have to carry your picture ID with you jogging or walking your dog around the block now? Just asking…
Quick Google Arizona Civil liberties new law gives this; it is funny you would make snarky remarks in support of the law being challenged if you don’t even know of these basic criticisms that I just learned in 30 seconds of internet search… but that’s sort of the theme to this thread, the dumb & ignorant get confidence… Nice to have you as a real life example…
July 8th, 2010 at 6:06 am
The law is 18 pages long, I too was concerned so I read some of the law, I made it to about page 6 or so yesterday during lunch, it isn’t that bad, in fact it seem rather well written. The police do have to have probable cause just as they do in any arrest, but being in this country illegally is, well, illegal and therefore a crime. Is simply being Hispanic enough to cross that line? Probably not. As always the courts will set that imaginary line. All through the law were phrases like “not withstanding any federal law”. It would seem that the Wiki piece is more editorial than realistic, I would suggest you read the law. There is a link below.
Being Hispanic in Arizona may mean you need to hold more identification than a white guy, sorry, that is a consequence of the situation, I know when I travel abroad I always carry my passport, anytime I step out of my room I have it in my front pocket, I know I’m a visitor there, I know I stick out as an American and wouldn’t feel slighted if a policeman asked for ID.
I haven’t read the law suit the Obama administration has brought but Rush said yesterday that there is nothing in it concerning the rights of Hispanics, just the rights of the federal government over states. I don’t know how true that is but it would seem plausible.
If Obama doesn’t like this law he can just get his Democratic congress to pass legislation to override parts of it, but that would not be good politically since most of what the law is saying is that cities and towns must follow federal law i.e. no sanctuary cities allowed in Arizona, and if the local authorities find an illegal they must arrest them and turn them over to federal authorities after fining them $500 or $1000 ( I may be exaggerating there a little). it doesn’t presume to tell the federal government what to do with them after that. Of course it does put pressure on the feds, if the feds turn them loose…
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
July 8th, 2010 at 6:14 am
Enky,
But of course my comments weren’t about the incident, they were about the justice department dropping the case.
So what was the guy doing there with a night stick if he wasn’t intimidating anyone?
July 8th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Actually Knarly, the law states that you CAN’T be stopped for no reason (i.e. jogging while Hispanic). You can only be questioned further in the course of being stopped for an initial legal violation. Even then, there has to be specific red-flags of suspicion evident (not simple skin color) before the officer can ask for additional indentification. (My understanding is that even those without documentation on them are allowed to provide it before being deported.)
Frankly, aren’t we ALL asked for our “papers” whenever we are stopped? Your Driver’s License and registration says a lot more about your authenticity than simply whether you are legally able to drive or that you own the car. I frankly go very few places without my wallet and my “papers”. Its just common sense. Why should any other group (especially non-citizens) do anything different? And how burdensome is it to do so?
Now, is the law (or any law) susceptible to the old “looks like that car with Hispanics was “weaving”, so I’m gonna pull them over” ploy to try to develop an arrest charge? Well, of course it is! Hell, if an officer wants to pull ANY OF US over, he always has a reason available to cover himself. That doesn’t stop us from having laws.
But, lets try to live in the real world while discussing this issue. If this law goes into effect, the police are going to be EXTRA careful, especially initially, to only question people in a very obvious traffic stop situation, and only if there are very obvious signs (through experience) that an illegal alien is present. These officers aren’t interested in being exhibit A in the media/political microscope of civil rights injustice. And you know that EVERY arrest that leads to a person being detained for even a minute will become political fodder if the person ends up being a legal resident. To me, the Obama Administration would be better off simply voicing their complaint but letting the law go online. Then, once the inevitible law suits start being filed, they will have the moral and legal ground to step in, with the weight of public perception more clearly in their favor (especially if some police yahoo makes a blatently improper arrest).
Interesting what I am hearing about States like Rhode Island having in place, for quite some time, an executive order to allow its State/local police to detain illegals in the course of being stopped for another reason, and then turning such illegals over to ICE. Sounds very similar to Arizona’s basic process. Yet no action by Obama’s legal eagles.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:47 am
By the way Knarly, the passage of the warranties arrest is in the first few pages, you can always be arrested without a warrant for any of a number of violations, drunk driving for instance. When you are reading this law understand a lot of it is the state controlling cities, not necessarily changing existing laws. The purpose is keep cities from ignoring the law as it exists. This will be the crux of the lawsuit with the feds I believe. Denver is a sanctuary city, the police are under orders to NOT check residency. If you want to change the law and let anyone that want come into the country change the law, but if you are going to have a path to citizen ship those that don’t take that path need to be punished.
If your neighbor moved into your house one day you would have every right to kick his ass out, if he wants to live in your house you have the right to impose conditions for his living there, probably rent at the least. I work with a guy from Cambodia, he came here with a visa, got a green card, worked hard and got his citizenship, we had a party for him the next day, it was pretty cool, if Mexicans want to come here let them follow the same path and we’ll have a party for them too.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Thanks for your comments Craig and shcb. They are at odds with news snippets I’ve overheard, but that’s probably because the news snippets were intended to be inflamatory. In htis instance it seems like you guys know the issue so I’ll defer to your judgement. And for the record, I can not imagine why I would want to read one sentence of the Arizona law as it has zero impact on me and I couldn’t care less anyway. It was curiousity, thanks for the answers.
Craig – your issue about carrying ID everywhere you go being just common sense represents a shift in public opinion over the past forty or fifty years or so. Practically it makes sense, but hey, not all of us want to be practical all the time. That’s what freedom is about isn’t it, the right to choose stuff like that even if it is a dumb choice? Once, us free people were not so willing to succumb to the whims of the state to know an individuals whereabouts at any time by checking their papers.
July 8th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
But remember Knarly 40 or 50 years ago people didn’t leave their neighborhoods, I would think many of the illegals can probably live without ID if they stayed in their villages, but they make a decision to go where the work is. I don’t take my passport with me unless I’m going into a government installation in the US and wouldn’t need one if I didn’t go abroad but I do so I have one. I really don’t think that is an infringement on our freedoms.
When we were back in Kansas last weekend I thought how we used to have to take enough cash with us so we could pay cash for gas and such, now we have a debit card that works as well in Hong Kong as Denver, I know it isn’t the same thing but there are people out there that would say debit cards are an infringement on our freedoms since all our transactions are monitored, maybe so but it is also an increase of freedom of movement to have access to all your money anywhere you go. There are always tradeoffs.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:09 am
“40 or 50 years ago people didn’t leave their neighborhoods”
That’s a funny statement! How do you come up with that kind of nonesense so often and present it with a straight face? Or is it a joke and you are cracking up laughing about how no-one has called you on such a stupid statement yet? My parents in the late 20 and 30’s regularly took trips from Calgary to Banff in their car, and before that on the prairies they’d go to town each week or their friends would visit their farms. that was the norm in those days, not the exception. I’m sure it was the same in your country, with people getting away from the factories on the weekends to enjoy some pleasant time on the weekends. (Or maybe Americans didn’t get any holidays back then?) Anyhow, your country has been teaming with migrant workers since at least the time when slavery ended, moving from place to place. County Fairs have long been a tradition where people from neighboring towns got together, plus rodeos, and all sorts of other sports have people visiting other towns, then there’s travelling salesmen and all kinds of trade. People have always left their neighborhoods or towns to visit other places.
It’s probably more true that people do not leave their neighborhoods as much now due to a feeling of saftey in their ‘hood and a fear of gang violence if they wander into the wrong part of town, or simply due to the hassle of how long it takes to get away from a megacity.
Every time a thought like that just pops into your head do you take it as a god given truth without any critical thought? (That’s rhetorical.)
Next sentence:
“I would think that many of the illegals can probably live without ID if they stayed in their villages, but they make a decision to go where the work is.”
Just to be clear, are you talking about mud-hut people or are you talking about folks in places like Greenwich Village New York too, or both? In any event, you seem to be suggesting a policy that if people need to travel outside of their neighborhood they must carry identification. Without carrying those papers, they lose their right to travel freely? Also, if they do not have their papers with them in their neighborhood, how do the authorities know for sure they actually are in their neighborhood and not just pretending to live in the area? Maybe the people in the neighborhood should have special kinds of tatoos that identify them as being from that area? Or they could just wear yellow stars or similar emblems to identify which neighborhood they belong to.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Getting a little fired up there aren’t you? I’ve watched my little town in Kansas go from a thriving community with 4 clothing stores, 4 or 5 hardware stores and 3 car dealerships to several convenience stores and some cute nick knack stores, it has become a bedroom community for the town 35 miles away, nothing wrong with that, it may have even been for the better, but where they all now shop isn’t where they live. And yes people traveled then but it was a major trip to go to Denver or Wichita, something you did once or twice a year, now with cruise control and air conditioning in their cars people make the round trip in one day.
I’ve been in the villages in Mexico, they are reminiscent of my growing up, where you knew everyone, you mostly shopped in your little town, they knew your check was good or bad before you wrote it.
I didn’t mean any more than that, you guys really need to get off this mud hut people thing, it’s pretty silly, it was never meant to be racist, still don’t but what can you do, you all got it in your head that if it quacks like a conservative it must be racist, sad comment on your “enlightened” state but what can you do?
By the way, your folks never left town without their drivers licenses back then either. Took their passports with them when they left the country too.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:44 am
you’re right
July 9th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Have a good weekend my friend
July 10th, 2010 at 7:29 am
just maken’ sure the cops weren’t harasin’ da voters
http://tv.breitbart.com/new-black-panther-president-malik-zulu-shabazz-admits-to-blockade-philly-voting-office/
but a black man came in an fix it.
Ed Driscoll’s take on Mr Adams testimony
It’s alive and well.
July 11th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Remember the name Ike Brown for the next few days, this is the Obama administration’s next test. We’ll see if Holder is getting the message or not.
July 11th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Naaaaah. I’d prefer to watch this confident dumby in Arizona…
And this dummy was the best the best the wwnj’s could put forward as a presidential candidate? At least he seemed confident, …once upon a time. Bleh…
July 12th, 2010 at 5:14 am
I agree, I appreciate his service and I like him as a person, but he’s not my sort of conservative. He was just a throw away candidate, like Dole and Kerry before him. I liked this statement “It is hard to imagine that he was once seen as a politician who stuck to his beliefs and always put a good policy ahead of self-interested politics.” are they talking about then or now? Good policy in my opinion is his flip now, good policy in the opinion of the writer is the flop before, or maybe the situation has changed enough for John to change his position.
I’ve never liked this “path to citizenship” idea, there is already a path to citizenship, if they are here illegally, arrest them, put them in prison camps for 6 months then put them on a slow boat to the south of Mexico and drop them on the beach, let them find a way back to the north. Initiate a viable guest worker program and repeal the anchor baby law.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Yes. I know you weren’t big on McCain. Fair points on the article, it was not well written, I had similar questions about other passages. Immigration is a difficult issue for me, I like both extremes for different reasons (open the floodgates vs. fill the moat with crocodiles) but we can’t do both, practicallity demands a position somewhere in the middle but how many people should be allowed into our countries each year (or the standards for immigration which effectively can result in a similar limitation if the standards are set high enough) is a very tough thing to set. I do not think it should be set solely on need for labour or on need for people with investment income, I tend towards a preference for limiting the influx . That way the immigrants tend to get an appreciation for our social values and norms (e.g. fish & shellfish poaching, littering, female circumcision, and intolerance of other religions are fairly big faux pas in my neck of the woods) and hopefully adapt their ways to fit in better while retaining much of what is important to them from their home culture.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Yup, I think a guest worker program is the best compromise, that and the existing citizenship requirements. My boss is Dutch, his wife is Mexican working toward US citizenship for business reasons, one of their young daughters is dual US and Dutch and the other two girls are Dutch, but they are all here legally. Of course they are educated and well paid something many Mexicans aren’t, for them a guest worker program might work better, but at least we would have some control over the situation. There are many reasons to allow people into a country and many to stop them, and those reasons change over time but the need to control the migration remains constant.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Hmm. okay.
Do you know anything about this, it seems to be in your area…?
http://www.aspendailynews.com/print/141349
July 12th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I don’t know anymore than you, Aspen is in Colorado but it is in its own little universe, he could have gave that speech anywhere. Quite a few people have been saying the same thing, Rosen even has a little softer version.
July 13th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
yes, the doomsayers have been saying this for a long time… I fear someday they will be right
July 13th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Then again, according to tea party Republicans America has already fallen into the abyss of tyrany:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/nphotos/RETRANSMITTING-TO-CORRECT-SPELLING-TO-ADOLF-NOT-ADOLPH-A-billboard-ordered-and-paid-for-by-the-North-Iowa-Tea-Party-shows-President-Barack-Obama/photo/13072010/2/photo/world-retransmitting-correct-spelling-adolf-adolph-billboard-ordered-paid-north.html
July 13th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
The Tea Party really needs to leave the knee-jerk historical villians comparisons alone. Its a Political Protest for Dummies level of communication that just turns off anyone who they may be trying to sway. It was inane and simplistic thinking to use it during the Bush years, as well as now.
Although I had to laugh at Chris Matthews today for referring to videos of protest signs of Obama with The Joker makeup on, and suggesting that it was some kind of black “minstrel” display of Obama.
Good God! That Joker/Heath Ledger visual is almost iconic now. How does Matthews not understand the reference??? How sheltered is he in his D.C. cocoon?
July 14th, 2010 at 3:10 am
I still don’t see how Obama, the Joker (at least Ledger’s version), and “Socialism” are connected. The Joker seems to be more of an anarchist (although even that is not particularly fitting), and Obama is a right-leaning moderate. None of these things have anything in common. The “minstrel” claim is a stretch, but perhaps Matthews would be less confused if there was a coherent message to be found in the protesters’ choice of imagery.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:32 am
I’ve always seen the Joker connection as simply saying that Obama is a trickster, a joker, who has fooled people into thinking he is something he isn’t. Obviously, most people here won’t agree with that view of him, but I think that is the basic message being implied. Placard images don’t have to be argumentively-correct, just emotionally-connected.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
I guess I was giving the Tea Partiers too much credit in assuming they might have something interesting to say. Apparently all they can come up with is combining a bunch of random images and words stripped of all context in order to convey the message “bad things are bad”. It looks like the protests are little more than “baby’s first political rally”.
You’d be better off with Matthew’s interpretation, at least it suggests some capacity for depth. Maybe it is some kind of “reverse racism” thing where the message is that “we used to dress like them to show our superiority, but now they dress like us to show theirs”. Perhaps the message could be “a BLACK socialist is disguising himself so he can get into the WHITE House.” The implied racism would also fit in well with some of the other signs that seem to magically appear at these “totally not racist” events.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:45 am
so lets see… “mud hut people” totally not racist
enkidu a bigot for disagreeing with wrong wing nut job nonsense…
black man in white face, totally not racist
(see corollary, white man in black face also totally not racist as well)
Obama is Hitler because he won the election?
also, I know facts and reality aren’t your wwnjs strong suit, but Marxism is more about Communism iirc. So is Obama Hitler or Jimmy Carter? (ie an all powerful tyrant or a mild mannered engineer who was right about our energy future?) So far Obama is delivering tepid half measure ‘Change’ while the wwnjs scream about how we are all slaves because we have to pay taxes…. wait wasn’t the whole tea party a few hundred years ago about taxation *without* representation? Pesky liberal facts again.
also this is so totally not racist
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007150012
note to teabaggers, slavery was why we fought that big war…
We won, you lost. Get over it already.
On the other hand in the last couple weeks I learned that there are something like 938 active hate groups in the US. One of them happens to be black. The old Black Panthers at least set up health clinics and soup lines. The New Black Panthers don’t seem very popular (except on FauxNEWZ)
July 16th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
The weekend is almost on us, I’ve had a shitty week and then I find this little jewel, this one was just too funny not to share, enjoy.
I’m going to go find some beer, fire up the lawn mower and drive in circles for the next 4 hours.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-al-qaeda-racists-give-radicals-a-bad-name/
July 20th, 2010 at 4:57 am
And the hits keep on coming,
To the ag department’s credit she was fired.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/07/19/usda-official-in-breitbart-video-goes-under-the-bus/
July 20th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Racism is alive and well in the good old USofA. Who’d a thought the election of a black pesident would make it all boil to the surface.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Not just any black president, but a black president that chosen to surround himself with racists. Not particularly in this case, in this case the person not only made racist remarks, she actually acted on her racism and was fired for it, as it should be, but I don’t think Obama had anything to do with that, he may have, but there is no evidence of his involvement in the firing and history wouldn’t suggest he would fire someone for discrimination if that discrimination is against whites.
Racism is alive and well all over the world, the question is how does government react to it, so far this administration isn’t doing very well.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:36 am
but I want to be fair, here is her side of the story, she says the full video will tell a different story, I guess we’ll see.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/ex-ag-official-says-video-showing-white-farmer-story-excludes-key-context/
July 20th, 2010 at 9:27 am
I was about to post a similar story. If true, it does put a better spin on the starkly racist attitude from the edited video. If the full length of the video (and her actions in the alledged 24 years since that episode) shows an evolved level of thinking by this person, then I think she is getting a raw deal with being pressured to “resign” from the Ag Department.
Its also another reason why its best to view partisan-produced video clips with some caution before making any bold declarations about it. Just like the recent Think Progress clip that appeared to show multiple sound bites of racists comments and some signs at Tea Parties. It was later shown that several of the people used in the video were previously-proven to be either false supporters (i.e. documented liberal plants) or heavily-edited sound bites that leave out some very illuminating context. In other words, a disingenuously-produced clip.
Note that this doesn’t mean there are no racists or inappropriate signs at any Tea Party events. But these two examples above should be cautionary tales for those who may leap too quickly to embrace apparent video evidence,especially if it is from a partisan political source.
It is good to see that the NAACP still condemmed the attitude presented by the speaker in the video, even though they acknowledge her explanation that there was more to her story than what was shown. They also acknowledge that the approving attitude of the audience at this NAACP function was also inappropriate.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Yeah I agree with Craig. I think she was using that story to show how much attitudes have changed over the years, on both sides. It’s a shame it got twisted into anti-white rant. I’m don’t think she deserved to lose her job over it, she seems like a pretty bright person with a wealth of experience.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Wife of white farmer: Fired USDA worker saved our land
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html?hpt=T1
The Obama admin was way too hasty in her firing. And by the sounds of it, they were quite dickish about it too.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:18 am
I haven’t seen the full video yet, or the short video for that matter.
As a side line I think this bodes well for Fox News as well. They broke the original story that she had been fired because she made racist remarks, they also far the story that she said they were taken out of context. Now from a strictly selfish, profit driven stand point this is good journalism. They don’t care what the story is or how it unfolds as long as they get to report it. They don’t care if she is a racist at a high level of government and got caught or that that government fired her without cause, they are both legitimate stories. As long as you aren’t editorializing too much in either content or story selection you can report contradictory stories one day apart without a loss of credibility. That is what reporters are supposed to do, report.
For instance I just looked at Fox News, Reuters, and CBS sites not one of them has anything on the oil spill in China, it is the largest spill in their history from what Bloomberg was saying last night, they seem to be the only people covering it. But all three have pictures and multiple stories of Lindsey going to court.
one of the sections in the Think Progress clip was from 2006, before the Tea Parties were even formed.
July 20th, 2010 at 11:29 am
“The video says Sherrod’s remarks were delivered March 27 to an NAACP Freedom Fund banquet, but it is not clear that is the case” so they aren’t sure what event this was at, she can remember exactly which farmer it was when she helped “hundreds” white farmers and they were a minioity so thousands? of black farmers? They remember her? I mean it’s all possible I remember the name of an IRS agent that helped me out 25 years ago, last name anyway, but boy, seems everyone is in damage control here.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Yeah everybody’s lookin bad in this one. It was the lead story on Hannity last night, wonder what he’ll say about it tonight.
July 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Whatever he says, he will be right, his favorite color can be blue tonight and green tomorrow but by God he was right both nights. I used to like him, but not so much anymore, but I really haven’t watched him for a couple years more that maybe 5 minutes at a time every couple months. I’ll probably opt to drink beer and sit on my tractor and spray weeds tonight, so if you decide to watch him let me know his take.
July 20th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Just viewed the section of the full recording of Sherrod’s speech at the NAACP. She started the story by summarizing that this was how she realized that things can be bigger than white/black. That they can be about just poor, or the have-nots. So, the audience is already clued in that this is going to be a story of raising one’s view beyond race. Which, to me, defuses some of the negative impact of people nodding their heads and indicating agreement with what Sherrod was later saying about not helping out the supposedly superior-talking white man too much. Its more of an acknowledgement of the human impulse to reject someone who is perceived to be slighting you. (along with a little black perspective thrown in, I’m sure). Plus, the audience knows that there is going to be more to the story.
If we can’t appreciate someone’s story personal growth which began about 24 years ago, then there is no hope for anyone to claim themselves to have developed into a better person in the course of one’s life experiences. So, based upon this speech, no one can pronounce Sherrod as a racist. Yes, she had a slanted view at one point in her life, but that appears to be different now.
I don’t know enough about her in general to proclaim her Person of the Year, but she certainly hasn’t earned a racist tag. Andrew Breitbart has overplayed his hand here by taking an edited tape that was sent to him, and rushed to claim NAACP prejudiced attitudes (among the audience) when, in fuller context, his point is weak tea at best. And even if his target was not really Sherrod herself, his hurried attempt to get an “a-ha” moment on the NAACP ended up hurting someone else (Sherrod) along the way.
The Secretary of Agriculture needs to suck it up and correct his knee-jerk reaction too, and reinstate her. I get his point about zero tolerance and a possible tainted view of Sherrod, but holding firm here would be more about political expediency than zero tolerance of actual racism.
Hopefully, both sides will stop playing this political pot-shot game with race and get on to more serious discissions.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:22 am
Thanks for that Craig, I hate “zero tolerance” rules period because they so often are used as cover for weak kneed or weak minded bureaucrats. That said, just because you have a zero tolerance policy doesn’t mean you have to zero time to make a decision. This happened what, two days ago? In that time you, someone with a life and a purpose that doesn’t include making this decision has found the time and the whole tape and watched it. Don’t you think someone could have asked her about it before they fired her?
Funny how my views have flip flopped on this one.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:05 am
Mine too, when I first saw the short clip I was already putting her in the doucebag category. She actually seems like a very wise lady.
I hope she gets her job back.
July 21st, 2010 at 9:36 am
If she wants it!
July 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
There is a lot of goofy accusations floating around the blogosphere and the cable networks regarding this whole sorry episode. A few conservative websites are suggesting that Ben Jealous was present at the very speech in question, just because Sherrod acknowledged the presence of the President in that speech. I took two minutes to Google it and find out that the NAACP has “Presidents” at the State and County levels.
Maybe Ben showed up at this routine County function, but it seem MUCH more likely that it was a local President of the NAACP Chapter.
Andrew Breitbart also has been trying to say that this clip was never about Sherrod, and only about the reaction of NAACP members during the speech. That rings false to me. If Andrew wasn’t trying to point out that Sherrod was saying something racist in the first place, there wouldn’t have been any point to directing people’s attention to the reactions made by her audience. He had to understand that by suggesting she was a racist (by way of her supposed racist comments) that she would be under fire professionally and personally. Andrew has let his anger at the NAACP’s race-baiting keep him from responsibly vetting that clip and then throw an innocent person (innocent of inflamatory comments) under the bus.
MSNBC is busy branding Fox as unethical due to showing an edited clip that ended up being a false representation of the truth. I had to laugh out loud as I instantly remembered how MSNBC edited a tightly-cropped video of a man carrying a gun at an event that Obama was attending, a year or two ago. The context was about about White/Tea Party anger toward Obama as a black man. The problem was that (a) it was in a State in which openly carrying a gun was allowed, and (b) the video, in its full length, showed the man with the gun to be an African-American!! The edited video was shown over and over again in at least on 24-hour news cycle by MSNBC, and to my knowledge, they never acknowledged their deceit.
Fox News Channel is also getting some hits that may not be warranted. They claim that they never discussed the story on-air until AFTER Sherrod was fired by the Agriculture Secretary, despite claims by others that Fox pushed this story and caused this chain reaction. That should be easy enough for someone to prove or disprove. Plus, that doesn’t mean that Fox may have promoted the story on its website first, and then, later on, on the News Channel. Again, I’m not sure.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:09 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk
July 21st, 2010 at 11:18 am
this is headline I just read “Agriculture Secretary Vilsack says he will ‘conduct a thorough review’ after full video emerges of former USDA Georgia official Shirley Sherrod discussing white farmer” Hmm, maybe if that was done before she was fired…
Another thing I read on the right side of the blogo globe is that Obama planned the whole thing, since they are getting so much heat for the DOJ mess, they found a black person to toss under the bus, the NAACP had the long version clip but only leaked the short version so a right winger would pick it up and run with it so they could fire someone and show how race neutral they are. Better get out the tin foil hats folks.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:23 am
Craig, I saw this online on Fox and it was after she was fired, If it was online before that it was burried, but I can’t immagine that. in fact I thought the story was kind of downplayed, maybe because she was fired before they found out about the comments and that seemed the right thing to do at the time, just tossing that out there.
July 21st, 2010 at 1:30 pm
If you guys are interested Rosen had Paul Teague on today, a more knowledgeable oil and gas man is hard to find, he was a deep water pioneer. He was on for 2 hours so maybe 1.5 hours of total listening. Not much in the way of advertisements. He goes into great detail of what happened and what is happening in the gulf and is quite critical of BP at the corporate level. If you have an interest in some real information it is a must listen. Go to koaradio.com, or 850koa.com, click Rosen and then page down a little.
July 21st, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Wow, CNN, and specifically Rick Sanchez, seems to be busy congratulating themselves all day for not rushing into judgement about Sherrod, and having her on the CNN set, and having her watch, live, in a split-screen view, Robert Gibbs direct his profound apologies to her.
Make no mistake. She was greatly wronged in how she was treated in the media and within the Department of Agriculture. But for some reason, I can’t help but think that the pendelum is swinging a bit too far righting the wrong. When David Gergen starts making an analogy of Sherrod to Nelson Mandela, I wonder if there is a bit of an overcorrection going on!
But that’s just the media being the media.
After all, she is still on tape saying that, ‘yes, its more than black and white, its about the poor and the have-nots……but its also still about black and white too’. Everyone seems too embarrassed about the overall wrong that was done to her to still question her about what she meant by that quick fall-back comment in still accepting racial considerations in deciding who needs help.
I do hope that she does get a new position that will take advantage of her new-found recognition, and the Dept. of Ag can hopefully use her to help turn a long discriminatory perpection of their Dept. into a more positive one.
Did anyone catch that additional embarrassment that the Department Secretary briefly mentioned in his press conference? Somehow Sherrod got wind of this edited clip being offered around, and she sent an e-mail the the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, last Thursday, to warn them about its existence? Turns out that the Deputy’s e-mail message never was acted on by his office and the Secretary didn’t get his copy due to Sherrod spelling his e-mail address incorrectly!
Even more reason why the Department officials had to grovel to Sherrod in a big way!
Now a few blogs are trying to tie her (through her husband) as far left activists due to her husband’s connection to a student protest group in the 60’s that Bill Ayers also belonged to.
Really? Hey guys, quit while you’re behind. Let it go.
July 21st, 2010 at 3:42 pm
It’s like watching an old Lucy rerun.
July 22nd, 2010 at 6:15 am
Considering her father was killed by a white farmer in the 60s, I don’t think anything she has said was over the top.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 am
Reminds me a bit of when I got out west and badly wanted a job at Chronicle Books. High end art and collectible book publisher, best in the field. I interviewed with a woman who spent a long time going over my work and talking about the industry. At the end of it all, she sat back in her chair and looked thoughtful for a moment and then said “I’d hire you if you were a woman. A woman wouldn’t expect as much, wouldn’t want to advance as fast or as far…” I’ll start at zero I said. Look at my work I said. I want to work for you I said. But her answer of ‘wellllll’ put the lie to that: I didn’t want to work for her any more.
I didn’t get that job, of course, but it gave me a valuable lesson in the application of prejudice and discrimination. I had just a tiny taste of what any person of color or any woman trying to get ahead in the workplace must face every single day. This was back in the twentieth century but racism and discrimination is alive and well today (see virtually any posting by wrong wing nut job).
I look forward to the wwnj/craig-malkin expose on those other 937 US hate groups: any idea what percentage are racist teabaggers? Is that redundant? Will your extensive expose come after that list of murder and mayhem by left wingnuts on right wingers? Still waiting on that… btw, I have yet another example of a rightwingnut going on a rampage (I suppose this is what whackdoodle Sharon Angle means by 2nd amendment remedies). In Oakland CA, police stopped a weaving truck and the guy opened fire. Turns out he was covered in body armor, armed to the teeth and was motivated to kill anyone to the left of him (which is pretty much everyone). http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/18/BAG71EG92P.DTL
When you two jokers can actually come up with someone more devastating than a single black guy in a funny coat carrying a cheerleader’s baton outside a nursing home, you be sure to let us know. k?
But just keep screaming as how its them mudhut people who is racist n stuff.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Another neighbor, 55-year-old Thomas Funk, said he had seen Williams drive by a few times but had never heard him speak. Williams didn’t stay quiet, though, after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama.
“He was (angry) about the new president,” Funk said. “He said the world’s going to hell in a handbag because we have a black president and he didn’t think black people deserve to be president. He was just bitter.”
Williams screamed his anger so loudly, using curse words and racial epithets, that Funk’s wife had to close the door to keep her son from hearing, Funk said.
His apparent racism, combined with comments his mother has made to the media that she owned the guns he took from her because she believes a “revolution” is near, may paint a picture suggesting Williams was part of a white supremacy group and could have been acting on their behalf Saturday, but local sheriff’s deputies said they’ve seen nothing to suggest he was connected to such a group. Authorities in Oakland believe he acted alone.
– – – – –
He was on his way to SF or Oakland to shoot some NAACP and Tides Foundation mud hut folk. Nothing to see here, just another isolated incident. Move along. Move along.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 am
First couple paragraphs would have been worth a discussion, oh well.
July 22nd, 2010 at 12:01 pm
you must be too busy with your big exposé on those 937 other hate groups
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
yeah, that’s it, burnin the midnight oil on that one.
July 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 am
Just for fun I looked at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list, I assume that is what you are refering to, they say 932 so that is close enough. I didn’t see La Raza in there, hmm, wonder why?
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7565389
I stand corrected: Mr Williams wanted to murder ACLU libs and Tides Foundation sorosian aliens… gotta wonder what was in his binder-o-hate. My guess is yet another wwnj lunatic screed about how them dirty libs n mud hut folk are ruining everything.
However, in typical wwnj form, he gits drunk, grabs his maw’s guns and his tactical body armor vests, jumps in his pickup and drives like a bat outta hell to frisco to kill him some damn dirty libs! Only problem? He left on Saturday night and neither organization is open on the weekend afaik. D’oh!
Seriously stupid is as republican does.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:50 am
hmm not going to answer my question I see. Oh well.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:18 am
I really should be nicer to you liberals, in fact I’m thinking to running up to Boulder and giving a random lib a big hug for keeping me employed. On top of an already hectic schedule I now have to design and build a production line for a steel part to replace a perfectly functional plastic part simply because the plastic is PVC, it has chlorine in it, can’t have PVC in a building if a liberal search engine company is paying for it. Wonder what they are going to use for drain pipes, maybe lead? Are they going to have city water in the building? That has chlorine in it, maybe they’ll just boil all their water. Two steps back.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Are you asking a question about this la Raza group?
I have no idea who they are, but let me guess: they’re mud hut folk?
but when you get your info from foxnewts, macho mike, rush, beck and various psychos, conservapedia starts to sound more reasonable.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
I know it reads like an Onion parody, but this is tragically real.
This is why we’ll easily win the second civil war: wwnjs git emselfs so dingt angry they caint drive straight (must be why nascar only turns in one direction?)
Funny how you aren’t all ‘shoot em in the head’ with this wwnj cop shooter… but some punk protesting the G20 needs to be murdered for tipping over a garbage can or something? fair n balanced indeed
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
La Raza is a Mexican supremacy group like the Black Panthers is a black and the KKK a white supremacy group, they aren’t as violent as the Panthers or KKK but thy certainly fit the criteria of the SPLC’s list. The SPLC lists every fringe group with a post office box that is against ILLEGAL immigration whether they are racist or not, and even dismiss La Raza’s stated mission which is to take over areas of the Southwest by flooding the area with like skinned individuals so as to retake land they consider stolen (even though they stole it a few centuries before). But somehow La Raza doesn’t make the cut. My guess is that is just one example of many that were not politically correct to include.
From a friend in Utah “ask the Indians what happens when you let immigration get out of control”.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
By the way, I don’t know why you are minimalizing my sources, you had never even heard of this rather well known hate group by SPLC standards. Maybe you need to reassess your sources.
July 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Oh of course I’ve heard of La Raza the Hispanic American interest group, but I have never heard of this La Raza the hate group. The La Raza web site doesn’t say anything about “La Raza’s stated mission which is to take over areas of the Southwest by flooding the area with like skinned individuals so as to retake land” I looked and looked, but they don’t mention your statement at all… (plus if you can’t see the racism in “like-skinned” there is something wrong with you, which I suspect is indeed the case based on your extensive postings (yawn) here at lies.com)
Maybe the SPLC doesn’t consider them a hate group because they aren’t a hate group? I know you white supremacists mistranslate their name as “The Race” but that isn’t the original meaning
At any rate, I would like you to point out just how much murder and mayhem La Raza has inflicted upon poor helpless white America in their “stated mission…” I expect this is just more wwnj bullshit, but please enlighten us poor stupid libs. And then get cracking on those other 930 hate groups. I look forward to your exposé.
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I know this isn’t a link to fauxnewtz, but perhaps you could read this without your hate-colored glasses on? Just try it… take your head out of your ass for just a little while?
http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/faqs/the_truth_about_nclr/
July 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I don’t think they are a hate group either, but they fit the criteria of SPLC as a hate group. Yeah, I don’t think La Raza are going to publish their mission on their web site, you have to listen to what the leaders have said in speeches and interviews, and that is just a small part of what they do, some of it good, some of it not so good. SPLC specifically states that the group doesn’t have to be involved in any violence to be included in the list.
My point to this exercise is the list you are referring to is pretty biased against right wing groups and omits similar left wing groups, and has its definition of a hate group way, way too wide, making it pretty useless. That is my exposé.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:40 am
These right-wing smear jobs are getting tired. The whole “climate-gate” issue was another successful smear job by the same type of folks.
Here’s a really good editorial from Canada’s largest newspaper on Saturday:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/839644–the-science-of-climate-change-is-alive-and-well
July 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
A note on the hypocrisy involved here. You are always critical when the coal industry investigates the coal industry and the tobacco industry pays for a study to investigate the effects of smoking but it is ok for the University to pay for the investigation of the University.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
shcb,
Not comparable at all: coal and tobacco industry interests are directly and fundamentally tied to the profits of their respective industries, University funding is only partly from research grants and more importantly it is critically dependent on the Quality of their scientific findings NOT on whether the findings support a specific agenda.
Besides, your argument is a red herring if you’d read closely enough to notice the third paragraph instead of glancing at the authors and deciding that , as a true red wwnj then since they have University degree their opinions must be discounted in favour of the guys with fancy hair on Faux news.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Third paragraph:
July 26th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
What does that have to do with anything, I’m not talking about the article, I’m talking about the fact that the University of East Angola paid for this study, this study may be absolutely correct just as some tobacco and coal studies may have actually been correct but you tend to discount them merely because of who is paying for the study. It seems if you’re going to be consistent you should also discount this study as the people who are being investigated were also paying for the study. The University hired these scientists, they pay the scientists, and they were they oversaw the activities of the scientists, They are responsible as well, to a lesser degree of course but they still have some indictment in this matter.
“and more importantly it is critically dependent on the Quality of their scientific findings NOT on whether the findings support a specific agenda. “ that is just bullshit, you are living in a dream world if you actually that that statement is true.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:57 am
They’ve been cleared by something like three different reviews.
You guys went to the well one too many times lately with the old conservative smear machine. Everybody’s on to you now. The media is going to super-scrutinize everything coming from these groups going forward.
Speaking of bullshit. Jones, Acorn, the so-called climate-gate, Sherrod… all bullshit.
I will hand it them, they’re excellent at tearing people down and inciting fear and hate. Only problem is that what America (and the world) needs right now is to be lifted up and people who inspire hope and love.
Peace.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:16 am
You have to admit though it is pretty damning when you are telling people to delete emails that are being sought in FOI documents. I don’t care if it is the CIA or the dog catcher or some guys in a university.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:31 am
I’m oversimplifying a bit here but the reports that have cleared these scientists have done so by saying things like “they didn’t follow proper scientific procedures but their findings are correct” how can you know that if the procedure wasn’t followed? These guys screwed up and need to start over. The next problem is that many if not most of the other scientists based their research on this data. Sorry but this is and was a very big deal, it isn’t just a bunch of spoiled sport conservatives, it really is a big deal.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
The documentation from the IPCC is the most peer reviewed documentation in history. Stuff doesn’t get into those reports without overwhelming consensus amoung the global climate research community.
July 27th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I doubt that statement is true but it is probably true enough for this discussion. So why not comply with the FOI if the information was so rock solid?
July 27th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
they stonewalled the FOI for a year or two, then they erased or “lost” some of the information asked for in the FOIs. Golly if everyone and their brother has signed off on it why not just post it on the internet for everyone to see. Are we talking about state secrets here?
July 27th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
I thought this was pretty good, and it comes from your native land NL
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25817
July 28th, 2010 at 6:56 am
I’m going to revert to something I’ve said in the past.
I simply don’t believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists to try and convince us that greenhouse gases are causing our planet to warm.
I do believe, however, there is a very aggressive effort by those with ties to the oil and gas industries to confuse the public and place doubt in their minds.
Over the past 100 days we’ve seen first hand how trustworthy and forthcoming BP has been about how much oil has been leaked, the causes and so on. It’s their first instinct to bullshit.
Why would I believe them?
July 28th, 2010 at 8:31 am
And for everything we talk about on here it seems there’s a South Park episode that covers it :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ozI8TW4he8&NR=1
July 28th, 2010 at 8:35 am
I agree, I don’t think there is world wide conspiracy either, I think they actually believe what they say. I also don’t think Jones and the boys started out doing anything wrong either, they were right as far as the data and good science was concerned for 20 years, that is a long time to be right and then find out you MIGHT be wrong, especially when they are probably still right, man does have an effect, they just may be wrong about the degree.
You have to understand there are many factions involved here, similar factions to the ones you don’t trust. You are probably wise to not trust BP since it seems they put profit above safety, but why are you not just as untrusting of Vestas, do you not think they may be putting profit ahead of the true utility of windmills? Why do you not trust profit motivated BP but you do trust status and grant money (profit) motivated IPCC and Jones? Just because a company or individual has a profit motivation doesn’t mean they are crooked, there are many companies in the Gulf that are doing it right, there are many scientists that are doing it right as well. You really should go back and listen to the interview of Paul Teague I mentioned above, you can download it to your IPOD and listen while you mow the lawn, it is quite an interview.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:37 am
change this “especially when they are probably still right” to this “especially when they are probably still partially right”
July 29th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Who is Paul Teague? (sorry i’m just being lazy I’m sure I could use the google to find out)
The last two decades are the warmets on record, the 2000s just surpassed the 90s for the title.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/841615–global-warming-undeniable-it-s-getting-hotter-every-year?bn=1
“A comprehensive review of key climate indicators confirms the world is warming and the past decade was the warmest on record,” the annual State of the Climate report declares.
Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries , the report said its analysis of 10 indicators that are “clearly and directly related to surface temperatures, all tell the same story: Global warming is undeniable.”
July 29th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Paul is an oil man from here in Denver, pioneered deep water drilling, 75 years old, done it all, seen it all, worked for Texaco.
As far as the article, it is right, but you are selectively reading it, look at the data and charts, re-read the article and see if you can see where the slight of hand is. The scientist are correct, the writer is paying fast and loose, and you aren’t reading it very carufully.
July 30th, 2010 at 6:48 am
What does an oil man know about climate research?
July 30th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Probably about as much as a tobacco man knows about cancer research.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Nothing, but it is interesting to hear the technical aspects of what happened, who was to blame, what is being done, what can be done to prevent this in the future etc. He doesn’t talk about climate research, I don’t know what gave you that idea.
July 30th, 2010 at 8:19 am
this is what you said that prompted the Paul Teague comment
“Over the past 100 days we’ve seen first hand how trustworthy and forthcoming BP has been about how much oil has been leaked, the causes and so on. It’s their first instinct to bullshit.
Why would I believe them?”
Paul would agree with you by the way.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Oh sorry, I misunderstood.
I’ll try to check it out!
July 30th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Very civil of you NL, Smith can learn from you.
If you listen to the interview bear in mind that there is probably some animosity toward BP since he gave so much of his career to Texaco. As always take what he (or anyone) says through a filter.