Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:39 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Keanu Reeves come back from wherever he's been since the Matrix and Speed movies to turn a classic 1951 warning about the perils of nuclear armageddon into a tribute to the climate change cult in tomorrow's release of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

The movie's plot on Wikipedia is less than inspiring:

The film opens in the future San Dimas, California, with Rufus (George Carlin) preparing to use a time machine disguised as a phone booth to travel back to 1988 to make sure that Bill S. Preston, Esq. (Alex Winter) and Theodore "Ted" Logan (Keanu Reeves) remain together as the band "Wyld Stallyns", as their music is the core of the future's Utopian society.

Wait a minute. That's the more realistic plot from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Here is the plot for Keanu's latest turkey:

A representative of an alien race that went through drastic evolution to survive its own climate change, Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) comes to Earth to assess whether humanity can prevent the environmental damage they have inflicted on their own planet. Klaatu himself already has a negative opinion of humans, and when barred from speaking to the United Nations, he decides they shall be exterminated so the planet – with its rare ability to sustain complex life – can survive. It is up to Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith) to convince Klaatu humans are worth saving: but it may already be too late.

Oh, it's too late all right—650 scientists from around the world have slammed the climate change cult, saying that there is no scientific evidence of manmade global warning.

Real science shows that the world gets warmer, and then it gets cooler. Then it gets warmer again, and then—wait for it—it gets cooler again. It's like a cycle or something. And it's been this way for hundreds of millions of years, well before bipeds with opposable thumbs moved to the coast, took up yoga, and decided to declare the world was about to end.

If you'd like to know the real cause of global warming and cooling, stick your head outside sometime during daylight hours and search the sky. See that big, flaming ball of hydrogen? That's the sun, or if you're feeling familiar, Sol.

Sol has weather, too.

Sometimes Sol burns hotter and sends out solar flares. During these periods, it pumps out tremendous, near incomprehensible amounts of energy, and the world warms up. Other times, Sol burns a bit cooler, solar flares die down, and the amount of energy it releases into space dies down a bit, and the world cools down. This we know. This is fact.

Climate change? It happens. In fact, one thing we know for absolute, irrefutable certainty is that climate change is constant, and it is going to happen no matter what we do.

By all means, do your best to practice conservation and protect the environment. But don't be so arrogantly clueless to think you are significant enough to change our climate as the suggest in this inconvenient spoof.

The best you can do is make sure when it gets cooler or warmer that it does so over lands and seas that aren't choked with our garbage and waste.

That's a big enough challenge of it's own, I think, even if it doesn't make as good a movie.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:03 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.

I think so.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:49 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I had to look it up 'cause I didn't get it either. Seems to be a gamer/internet prank of sending a mislabled link to a friend. Upon opening the link, you will be treated to a clip of his '80's video, instead of whatever you thought. So....here you thought you were getting the cartoon, and it turned into a "RickRoll"

Posted by: vin at November 29, 2008 05:52 AM (4GWtm)

2 My college-aged son started laughing and I asked why and he told me it was the biggest rick-roll ever. Fortunately he had explained rick-rolling to me before. The only way anyone can top what Cartoon Network did is to have a rick-roll during Obama's Inauguration speech.

Posted by: MikeM at November 29, 2008 09:00 AM (KTOU7)

3 Disrupt the Obama Nation? ROTFL!

Posted by: vin at November 29, 2008 11:33 AM (4GWtm)

4 Yes, the best stunt ever! I was gonna forward the video to friends and family ... But I think I'm the only one that knows WHY it's funny.

Posted by: DoorHold at November 30, 2008 12:47 PM (cKMGI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Squidoo is giving away money to charity. The company has $80,000 to give away and they're letting people vote on what charities to give the money to.

Please scroll down and choose "Soldier's Angels." Each click = $2.

If you haven't heard about them before, check out Soldier's Angels and what they try to do. It's a good cause.

(Thanks to Rusty Shackleford for pointing this out).

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Because Americans will piss away their money on anything, as long as they find it amusing.

Keep on bidding, folks. Can't we enthusiastically get behind this this empty, useless trash, and push it far higher than it deserves to be based on merit, for no reason at all?

Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

Oh, wait a minute...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:37 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Our buddy Jules Crittenden married up quite well, but did you know she could write, too?

"Tethered " is her new novel, and it appears to be attracting some buzz.

Proud husband Jules gushes here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

If he's superstitious about the old wives tale of deaths coming in threes, Samuel L. Jackson should be very afraid. Jackon's movie Soul Men is in post-production. Also starring in Soul Men?

Bernie Mac and Isaac Hayes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

That saddest thing about reader reaction to Raw Story's article about Bob Novak's retirement due to a "dire" brain tumor diagnosis?

These are their moderated comments.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:47 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's some serious class being shown there. Not sure what else to say other than i hope Novak recovers.

Posted by: Penfold at August 04, 2008 04:36 PM (lF2Kk)

2 I blame Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at August 04, 2008 06:01 PM (V/FgT)

3 It doesn't surprise me at all, given a sampling of their positions they've flatly stated. I can think of a few of the Liberal comments on this very blog. They've flatly stated their positions. They can't be talked out of it, and I wouldn't believe them even if they claimed to have changed.

Posted by: brando at August 04, 2008 06:58 PM (Gs5OS)

4 Limbaugh? Rush Limbaugh has never said anything remotely like these verminous pukes. This is perpetually the gambit of the Leftwing when it is exposed for the malignancy that it is. Slander someone else with your own villainy. Vercingetorix? Victor of how many battles? Any? Bueller?

Posted by: megapotamus at August 05, 2008 11:53 AM (LF+qW)

5 There is nothing more closed minded and intolerant than an "open minded, tolerant liberal."

Posted by: Mark at August 05, 2008 08:51 PM (Gq1iW)

6 (hmm...another Mark ) I can just feel the love and compassion the left has for their fellow humans. However, since they've determined Mr. Novak isn't human I wonder if PETA or the ASPCA might take offense on his behalf?

Posted by: Mark at August 05, 2008 11:11 PM (w/olL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just when you thought the Huffington Post couldn't become any more self-parodying, someone comes along to make it even more laughable:

Despite his background as a comedian, Stephen Colbert is known by many of the authors who have appeared on his show as one of the toughest interviewers in the business. But on July 28, when country music superstar Toby Keith stepped on the set of the Colbert Report to promote his movie, Beer For My Horses, he was greeted by his host with nothing less than reverential admiration. After a jovial, back-slapping sit-down with Keith, Colbert turned the stage over to his guest for a performance of the song that inspired the title and theme of his forthcoming "Southern comedy."

While Keith belted out "Beer For My Horses," Colbert's studio audience clapped to the beat, blithely unaware that they were swaying to a racially tinged, explicitly pro-lynching anthem that calls for the vigilante-style hanging of car thieves, "gangsters doing dirty deeds...crime in the streets," and other assorted evildoers.

Or perhaps Colbert, his audience, and the millions of people who have heard this song since it first hit number 1 in 2003 are simply far more grounded in reality than Mr. Max Blumenthal, who apparently sees a chance to scream "oppression!" behind every rock, tree, and country-western movie and music lyric.

After listing the lyrics to what was until now the uncontroversial lyrics of a song
about a "thirst for justice," Blumenthal whines that:

During the days when Toby Keith's "Grandpappy" stalked the Jim Crow South, lynching was an institutional method of terror employed against blacks to maintain white supremacy.

Though it will doubtlessly come as a shock to Mr. Blumenthal, this song, co-written by Scotty Emerick, is not autobiographical, any more than Keith's "I Love This Bar" is an ode to an illicit man-on-mahogany affair.

The song is entirely fictional and rhetorically set in the Old West, as the imagery of horses, whiskey, saloons, gun smoke, outlaws, and the "long arm of the law" clearly evoked for anyone reasonably grounded in this reality.

Conveniently,Blumenthal glosses over that the lyrics of Keith's song include the all-important words "It's time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground." This singularly expressed and culturally understood idea of the Old West deputized posse, led by sheriffs and marshalls operating under the color of law and made famous in hundreds of western movies and television shows over decades as part of our shared cultural heritage that Keith is drawing on utterly undermines Blumenthal's creation.

It is a delusion undone, revealing far more about Blumenthal's tortured psychology than Keith's lyrics, Colbert's insightfulness, or America's past.

Mr. Keith has every right to whimsically sing about whiskey for his men and beer for his horses, even as he might suggest that Mr. Blumenthal can (and probably should) take a nice tranquilizer with his merlot.

Perhaps for tomorrow's amusement Arianna Huffington can find a delusion even more spectacular than Blumental's latest—with Naomi Wolf lurking in the background, that is always a possibility—it's that prospect of ever more unintentionally funny, lethally-refined insanity that keep us coming back, time and again.

08/08/08 Update: Toby Keith himself hears about Blumenthal's moronic lynching claims, and tees off:

"It's about the old west and horses and sheriffs and posses and going and getting the bad guys. It's not a racist thing or about lynching. The song was a hit and the words lynch and racism has never come up until this moron wrote this blog."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:44 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I find stupidity like this frustrating as well, but I have long ago realized that ANYTHING pro-America or showing even the slightest bit of pride in our shared heritage is going to come under attack from the left. In Gainesville they passed a law to protect the LGBT community from prejudice, end result, a man can walk into ladies restrooms and changing areas freely... the catch? All he has to say is that in his head "he feels" like a woman. Nice huh? Thanks Liberalism...

Posted by: Buffoon at July 29, 2008 02:25 PM (EsVCm)

2 What is this guy smoking? Its a song about criminals getting the justice they deserve. If the Left wants to get bent out of shape they should at least get bent out of shape about what its rally advocating which is the increased use of the death penalty for those deserving. No where in the song does it mention lynching, it mentions hanging which was an approved method of execution for quite a while.

Posted by: Reason at July 29, 2008 02:25 PM (FaCaW)

3 Racist undertones in country songs? Scorn for Colbert selling out? HuffPoo has finally become a parody of itself.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at July 29, 2008 03:16 PM (oC8nQ)

4 Mr. Kieth sang that bad boy for us at Camp Victory in 2004... the troops (and me) went completely off the chain for it... He's one of the few entertainers who makes a regular effort to come over and see us with the USO... Blu-mental-hal can suck it...

Posted by: Big Country at July 29, 2008 04:10 PM (9dP7o)

5 Did you know that Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?

Posted by: Techie at July 29, 2008 04:24 PM (UyfPZ)

6 But when he hears that whistle blowing, he hangs his head and cries... Why? "And I ain't seen the sunshine since I don't know when, I'm stuck in Folsom prison, and time keeps draggin' on."

Posted by: Reason at July 29, 2008 04:30 PM (FaCaW)

7 Now that I think about it, didn't Willie Nelson sing the song to? Now, there's a Bushitler, knuckledragging, Republikkkan if I've ever seen one.

Posted by: Techie at July 29, 2008 04:32 PM (UyfPZ)

8 And Merle Haggard turned 21 in prison doin life without parole. And Stonewall Jackson broke out of the Naqshville jail and Johnny Paycheck robbed a liquor stor in Atlanta and somebody threw their bones in Miller's Cave. I mean it just goes on and on and on....

Posted by: Bandit at July 29, 2008 04:50 PM (D3sAj)

9 While Blumenthal has been hit in the head by Toby Keith's song and is running around in circles screeching "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" there exists an equally disturbing type of foolish person in our society. This foolish person seems to lack the ability or knowledge, perhaps both, to fathom that the reality of life in this mythic "old west" was not as simple as Grandpappy's wisdom would lead you to believe. In fact, neither is the present, much to their disappointment. The Old West was not a western movie where you hung the bad guys because you just saw them do bad things or the hero's dog pees on their leg. A lack of law enforcement, if there were laws, was dealt with through vigilantism. While expedient it lacked the due process we enjoy today and risked hanging innocents. Racist lynchings went way beyond justice into truly heinous, vicious mob violence bordering on ritualistic sacrifice. Blumenthal is Chicken Little but those who are looking at justice through John Wayne movie eyeglasses aren't any brighter.

Posted by: j swift at July 29, 2008 05:08 PM (fMU2X)

10 Hmm...Mr. Blumenthal is probably one of those guys who drove by the old man laying in the street after he got ran over. Or the five people who stepped over the woman bleeding to death in the grocery store after he boyfriend stabbed her. and took pictures, too. Or, those bunch of people who stood around and watched a grown man stomp a two year old to death. That is why these folks are so disconnected from the rest of us. We think "look, bad thing happening, do something." (point of the song, entirely). They think, "oh, that's a shame, somebody should really do something" and don't even bother to call the police. toby's song resonates because people get frustrated with the seeming inconsistant judicial system and what seems to be a societal gravitational pull towards excusing people's behavior. If ol' Blumers doesn't want to hear songs like that, he can turn off his TV and radio. In the end, though, I think ol' Blumers probably hasn't liked Toby since he wrote "courtesy of the red, white and blue". You know, that just wasn't very politically nuanced nor understanding of the great misdeeds that America has perpetrated against the Middle East and other nations. /sarcasm

Posted by: kat-missouri at July 29, 2008 05:25 PM (YLs4U)

11 Not being a big listener of country music, I wasn't familiar with the song so I went over to last.fm to listen to it. I am sorry I missed it when it first came out.

Posted by: Michael Pate at July 29, 2008 05:36 PM (2Km1S)

12 One wonders how vociferous Mr. Blumenthal is about "gangsta rap" and the many crimes, including rape and murder, that are advocated in those so-called "songs." I suspect, he was strangely silent about that issue. After all, he couldn't blame those lyrics on "right-wingers."

Posted by: C-C-G at July 29, 2008 06:50 PM (vCJA9)

13 Toby Keith and Willie Nelson did the song as a duet. Why didn't Blumenthal pick on Willie? Toby Keith has the sense to keep his politics to himself and recognize he is selling entertainment. It's a very entertaining song, not a political message.

Posted by: Retread at July 29, 2008 06:55 PM (sB3Iz)

14 I think the Democrat party used their terror wing, the KKK, very effectively. Ever since the civil war, when the job of the KKK was to keep the blacks in the former slave states in line. However, having grown up in the south, I didn't find lynching that prevalent, in fact I doubt there were any in my neighborhood. We did have plenty of Democrat KKK types knock on our door at election time and inform us of the consequences of not 'voting for the right candidate' though. Perhaps, Mr. Max Blumenthal has some sins he wants to share with the rest of us? The song is just funny, liberals not so much. And I am getting tired of liberal Democrats attempting to brand Republicans with their sins.

Posted by: bill-tb at July 30, 2008 07:36 AM (7evkT)

15 You guys keep on running against the Democratic Party of 1928. It's almost as pathetic as trying to tell me "the six o'clock news" is an Old West reference.

Posted by: Sarcastro at July 30, 2008 01:09 PM (L761i)

16 The song is entirely fictional and rhetorically set in the Old West, as the imagery of horses, whiskey, saloons, gun smoke, outlaws, and the "long arm of the law" clearly evoked for anyone reasonably grounded in this reality. Funny, I don't see anything in the lyrics to support that. The song's narrator puts the lynching "back in [the] day" of his "grandpappy." Even if the narrator is supposed to be older than the songwriters (b. 1961 and 1973), that doesn't get you much past the early 20th century, well within the Jim Crow era (and at best at the tail end of the Old West era). The two overlap substantially, so there's no necessary conflict, but your criticism on these grounds is silly. And there's just no reason to think that the rest of the song is about the old west rather than today. Unless you're under the impression that the 6 oÂ’clock news was a feature of western towns. What, did they use a town crier or something? Also, your strange idea that the phrase "the long arm of the law" is universally understood to reference the posses of the old west is, frankly, absurd. Can you give any support for this? I suspect you pulled it right out of your ass, but I'm willing to be corrected. Oh, and as for the bit about the "imagery of horses, whiskey, etc..." proving the old west setting, you are aware that country singers (and their fans) often use such imagery figuratively? You know, like saying "saddle up" when you're actually planning to drive somewhere rather than riding a horse? You can criticize Blumenthal for making too much of a song if you like (I'd probably agree as far as that goes), but your assertions that the song isn't actually a celebration of vigilante justice and has nothing to do with current events is just bizarre. Maybe you could try a less unhinged style of criticism, without the repeated reference to "delusions". Then again, maybe you should just write what you know.

Posted by: Larv at July 30, 2008 03:01 PM (6YCw9)

17 Mark, I am familiar with the song. I'm not sure what would make you think otherwise. I'm not familiar with the video, but that's pretty much irrelevant. The song predates the video, and videos are (IME) frequently made with only a tangential connection to the lyrics of the song. Are you suggesting that songs are uninterpretable in the absense of an accompanying video? Makes you wonder what music fans did before MTV. Look, songs are written as songs, not videos, and are generally performed without video accompaniment. As such, they can stand or fall on their own merits. Instead of making ignorant deductions about my supposed ignorance, maybe you'd care to supply some of the context I'm supposedly missing out on?

Posted by: Larv at July 30, 2008 04:12 PM (6YCw9)

18 Mark, It is true the song was recorded before the video was made. However, the two are inseparable due to their conjoined release. Um, no, actually they aren't. You even say so: "the song was recorded before the video was made." So they were produced separately, but are nevertheless somehow inseperable (presumably in some non-chronological sense). Is it your contention that they were both written at the same time? This seems highly unlikely, so I'd like to see some support for it if so. Ok, so I watched the video, and I'm utterly confused about what context I was supposed to see. It's sure not set in the old west. Is it that the protagonists in the video are law enforcement, so the song can't be about vigilantism? This seems directly contradicted by the lyrics, which as we've established precedes the video: Take all the rope in texas Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys Hang them high in the street for all the people to see that Even in the old west, they didn't hang people from trees unless they were in a hurry. You have time for a trial, you have time to build a gallows. Hanging somebody from a tree is, to use CYs words, a "singularly expressed and culturally understood" symbol of a lynching. Even if it's done by a posse, it's still a lynching. Also: We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds Weve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets Its time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground This is at best ambiguous. It does say "the law" and so can be taken to refer to law enforcement. But vigilantes generally see themselves as agents of the law, taking over when legitimate agents refuse to act. Combined with the earlier lyrics, it's hardly delusional to think it's a reference to vigilantism. The actual justice system doesn't generally execute people for "doing dirty deeds" (even if they were done dirt cheap), or corruption, or "crime in the street," unless it's murder. Maybe you read it as a critique of our judicial system and a recommendation that capital punishment be extended to lesser crimes like stealing cars? Look, I don't think it's worthwhile criticizing songs as if the writer meant every word of it. Hyperbole and overstatement are common in most musical genres. I don't really think Keith is actually recommending increased lynching as a solution to society's problems. But that is the plain meaning of the lyrics, and CY is pretending that it isn't, that instead it's just a song about the good old west. Sorry, but it's about vigilantism.

Posted by: Larv at July 30, 2008 06:01 PM (k8PBw)

19 You guys keep on running against the Democratic Party of 1928. Maybe that's because the Democrats haven't updated their policies since about that time...still pushing big government as the answer for every perceived problem.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 30, 2008 06:44 PM (vCJA9)

20 And still trying to paint Republicans with that racist history, pretty much as they have painted nazis -- the contraction of the the German words for National SOCIALISM -- as RIGHT wing, when they were, in fact, far to the LEFT, and had a treaty with Stalin's USSR, until Hitler double crossed them.

Posted by: Bill Smith at July 30, 2008 07:21 PM (LCyEC)

21 Larv - It's a song. Just a song. If you don't like it, don't listen. It must be nice to have so much time on your hands to disect a song.

Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2008 08:24 AM (j1ILX)

22 Larv - It's a song. Just a song. If you don't like it, don't listen. It must be nice to have so much time on your hands to disect a song.

Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2008 08:24 AM (j1ILX)

23 Larv - It's a song. Just a song. If you don't like it, don't listen. It must be nice to have so much time on your hands to disect a song.

Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2008 08:24 AM (j1ILX)

24 Mark, You keep trying to pretend that the song is the video is the song. It isn't. It simply doesn't matter if they were released together, that's just a marketing decision. The video is an interpretation of the song, it isn't the song itself. Otherwise the video director would get equal creative credit. Statements like "the perp in the song/video is a rapist/murderer" therefore make no sense, because the video is not the song. You keep claiming that because the bad guy in the video is a killer, that must be what the song is about, but the lyrics just don't support you at all. "Weve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets/Its time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground" Do you think that increased execution of murderers is going to act as a deterrent against corruption? That seems a bit questionable. Put those "old west" words into the context of the old Texas Rangers (albeit romanticized a bit much in the song and video) and you now have the context of "lynching". It happened a heck of a lot more 80+ years ago than in today's law enforcement. Okay, and? The point of the initial criticism (by Blumenthal) was that the song glorifies lynching. That lynching was once more popular than it is today doesn't change that. And I don't care if it's Texas Rangers doing the stringing up, it's still lynching. And you pretty much grant my point in the rest of your comment. The justice sytem isn't killing enough criminals to create a sufficient deterrent. This is exactly the justification most vigilantes use to justify their vigilantism. I assume you saw the Death Wish movies back in the day. Isn't that exactly what Chuck Bronson was doing? You keep claiming that because the bad guy in the video is a killer, that must be what the song is about, but the lyrics just don't support you at all. "Weve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets/Its time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground" Do you think that increased execution of murderers is going to act as a deterrent against corruption? That seems a bit questionable.

Posted by: Larv at July 31, 2008 09:23 AM (6YCw9)

25 Michael Smith: It's a song. Just a song. If you don't like it, don't listen. It must be nice to have so much time on your hands to disect a song. Yeah, I acknowledged that in my last comment yesterday. I'm not criticizing the song, I'm criticizing the attempt to pretend it's about something other than what it is. The Dead Kennedys have a song called "Lets Lynch the Landlord." Guess what, I don't think they're actually advocating murder. But it'd be pretty stupid to try and claim that the song's not really about killing landlords. And yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands. Slow days at work this week. Just as a bonus, from Bill Smith:And still trying to paint Republicans with that racist history, pretty much as they have painted nazis -- the contraction of the the German words for National SOCIALISM -- as RIGHT wing, when they were, in fact, far to the LEFT, and had a treaty with Stalin's USSR, until Hitler double crossed them. This may be the stupidest thing I've read this week. Yeah, that's why the Nazis hated the German Communists and sent them to the concentration camps before almost anyone else, because they were just so similar. Seriously, the utter ignorance of history or political science required to say this is mind-boggling. The treaty between the Nazis and the Soviets wasn't a matter of political alliance, it was simple pragmatism: they both hated their loss of territory after WWI, and Molotov-Ribbentrop was a way of regaining possesions in Eastern Europe while avoiding a two-front war for either(the Russians were at war with the Japanese whan it was signed). But no, the fact that Socialist was in the name of the Nazi party is obviously the dispositive factor here. Or not.

Posted by: Larv at July 31, 2008 10:15 AM (6YCw9)

26 Hey, you're not me! Identity theft! I agree that it's enough, neither of us is going to convince the other. I'm just bored and this is a diverting argument. I think it's a serious mistake to view a song/video as a cohesive artistic statement, though. That just isn't how music is made. I also think you're making a serious error in drawing a hard line between the lynching of criminals and blacks or other minorities. The Blumenthal piece that started this mentions the case of a Jewish man, Leo Frank, who was wrongly convicted of murder. When his innocence became obvious and his sentence was commuted, angry citizens broke into the jail, kidnapped him, and lynched him. The rhetoric used by his killers was transparently racist. Now, did they lynch him because he was a "criminal", or because he was a Jew? Maybe you're confident that lynchers are always careful to make that distinction, but I'm not.

Posted by: Larv at July 31, 2008 11:39 AM (6YCw9)

27 Oh, and incidentally, the Soviets and the Japanese were not, in fact, at war in 1939. There had been a series of border skirmishes which the Russians had won (known as the battle of Kalinin Gol, or Nomonhan to the Japanese). Neither had publicized the events, which is why Hitler expected Hirohito to help him when Barbarossa started two years later. The idea that this was part of the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact is, shall we say, in need of support. Also, a brief perusal of the history will indicate that communists sent other communists and socialists to concentration camps with great regularity. Indeed, Lenin stamped the Socialist Revolutionaries out of existence as soon as he was able. This hardly makes the SR's right-wingers (although they were divided into two camps, called "right" SR's and "left" SR's, this was a division about the timing of the inception of Socialism, and thus, similar to the divide between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. None qualify as conservatives). Thus, the fact that Nazis jailed and killed Communists has nothing whatever do with where exactly the Nazi's belong on the great left-right axis, which is a debate with a great deal more complexity then you seem willing to display.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at July 31, 2008 01:19 PM (cntKs)

28 Shoot. Lost my first post. The point is, Larv, that Blumenthal looks for Klansmen when none are in evidence. There is nothing in the song that expresses hostility to blacks or glorification of whites qua whites. Yes, blacks were lynched in the Old South. And horse thieves were lynched in the Old West, as were numerous other types of perp. To suggest that the former and not the latter are the focus of the song lacks a serious basis. Ah, but it COULD be about lynching blacks. That's perfectly true. and it COULD be about lynching a crash-landed space alien who looks suspiciously like the one that probed Bobby-Jack's rectum last week. The question is, given the three options: a) the song is about lynching blacks, though the text is not explicit on this b) the song is about lynching criminals, a staple of western music and movies, references to which are explicit in the song and even more explicit in the video c) the song is about vengeance for Bobby Jack's rectum, 'cos the poor fellow ain't sat down for a week without hollerin' which is the BEST answer?

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at July 31, 2008 01:29 PM (cntKs)

29 Andrew, I have no particular problem with your points about the song or Blumenthals column. That's a legitimate criticism of Blumenthal's column. Claiming the song isn't about lynching or has nothing to do with current events isn't. My sole point was that the song isn't "entirely fictional and rhetorically set in the Old West" as our host claimed. I read Blumenthal as disapproving of lynching imagery in general, due to the historical associations with racism and the KKK. I think he makes too much of the song, and I said as much in my first comment. But it isn't crazy to object to a song which glorifies lynching at a time when lots of black people were getting lynched. My sensitivity to such things isn't as great as his apparently is, but it's the kind of thing that people tend to feel strongly about. And my point about the bleed-over between racist lynchings and anti-criminal lynchings stands. As for the Nazi stuff, please. Thus, the fact that Nazis jailed and killed Communists has nothing whatever do with where exactly the Nazi's belong on the great left-right axis, which is a debate with a great deal more complexity then you seem willing to display. Um, the comment I was responding to wasn't the sort that requires a complex discussion of the intersection of Fascism and Nazism and their place in the greater political context of the day. It was, frankly, silly. The Nazis were leftists because the word "socialist" is in their name? The existence of a non-aggression pact is evidence of ideological solidarity? That's just ludicrous. Are you really willing to defend the assertion that the Nazis belong more to the left (far to the left, as Bill says) than to the right? 'Cause that's just crazy, complexity or no. Oh, and incidentally, the Soviets and the Japanese were not, in fact, at war in 1939. Yes, sure, there was no declared war, my apologies for my imprecision. I'm sure you also correct people when they say that we're currently at war, right?

Posted by: Larv at July 31, 2008 03:39 PM (6YCw9)

30 "Um, the comment I was responding to wasn't the sort that requires a complex discussion of the intersection of Fascism and Nazism and their place in the greater political context of the day. It was, frankly, silly. The Nazis were leftists because the word "socialist" is in their name? The existence of a non-aggression pact is evidence of ideological solidarity? That's just ludicrous. Are you really willing to defend the assertion that the Nazis belong more to the left (far to the left, as Bill says) than to the right? 'Cause that's just crazy, complexity or no." The comment may have indeed been a tiresome cliche, but so was your response, which bodes not well for the argument that the other person is stupid and you are not. And yes, I am willing to make the argument that the Nazis were a lot more of the left than people such as yourself are willing to admit. And the more you say, "That's just crazy," the more persuasive you aren't. As to your anti-nitpick defense re: Kalinin Gol, the point is not that the war wasn't declared, its that it wasn't a war. Two skirmishes do not a war make, and even if they did, they were kept secret by the participants (the rest of the world didn't hear about them until after WW2), so their relevance to your point about Molotov-Ribbentropp is entirely non-existent. So, unless you want to trot out that equally tiresome cliche, that I'm being "pedantic", just admit that you were misinformed. No big deal, it happens all the time.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at July 31, 2008 04:41 PM (cntKs)

31 The comment may have indeed been a tiresome cliche, but so was your response, which bodes not well for the argument that the other person is stupid and you are not. Speaking of cliches, how about "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"? You can sniff about it all you want, but I don't feel the need to give an in-depth response to a comment as shallow as Bill's. You say that you're "willing to make the argument that the Nazis were a lot more of the left than people such as yourself are willing to admit." First, you have no idea what I'm willing to admit. Second, that's not the claim I was responding to. I objected to Bill's claim that the Nazis were "far to the left," which is, again, transparently silly. It's not a tired cliche, it's just wrong. As to your anti-nitpick defense re: Kalinin Gol, the point is not that the war wasn't declared, its that it wasn't a war. Two skirmishes do not a war make, and even if they did, they were kept secret by the participants (the rest of the world didn't hear about them until after WW2), so their relevance to your point about Molotov-Ribbentropp is entirely non-existent. The Soviets and Japanese were in a state of armed conflict at the time of M-R, and the Japanese were obviously being courted by the Germans. The Soviets thus had reason to fear the prospect of a two-front war, making my point entirely relevant. Your point that the conflict wasn't known to the rest of the world, on the other hand, actually is irrelevant. Further, I suggest you get cracking on writing to everyone who has referred to this series of "skirmishes" as the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars and inform them that they are incorrect. So no, I wasn't misinformed, just using "at war" as a common shorthand for "in a state of armed conflict." And yes, you are being pedantic. No big deal, it happens all the time.

Posted by: Larv at August 01, 2008 11:58 AM (6YCw9)

32 "Speaking of cliches, how about "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"? You can sniff about it all you want, but I don't feel the need to give an in-depth response to a comment as shallow as Bill's." So you freely admit that your answer was stupid. All I need to hear. "You say that you're "willing to make the argument that the Nazis were a lot more of the left than people such as yourself are willing to admit." First, you have no idea what I'm willing to admit. Second, that's not the claim I was responding to. I objected to Bill's claim that the Nazis were "far to the left," which is, again, transparently silly. It's not a tired cliche, it's just wrong." So I don't know what you're willing to admit, but the argument is silly and just plain wrong. You think you're open-minded don't you? Or is this all about what you "feel the need to respond to" again? Mighty convenient, that dodge. Check the next thread. I'm having the same conversation with one Pamela Troy. Enjoy. "The Soviets and Japanese were in a state of armed conflict at the time of M-R, and the Japanese were obviously being courted by the Germans. The Soviets thus had reason to fear the prospect of a two-front war, making my point entirely relevant. Your point that the conflict wasn't known to the rest of the world, on the other hand, actually is irrelevant. Further, I suggest you get cracking on writing to everyone who has referred to this series of "skirmishes" as the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars and inform them that they are incorrect. So no, I wasn't misinformed, just using "at war" as a common shorthand for "in a state of armed conflict." And yes, you are being pedantic. No big deal, it happens all the time." Having gone back to my sources, I am willing to concede this point, as instead of two border skirmishes, as I (mis)concieved, there were several, and starting as early as 1938, then picking up again in May-August of 1939. Thus, your phrase "in a state of armed conflict" is entirely appropriate, and arguing about whether it deserves that status of "war" is angels-on-pinheads territory. It therefore appears that I, and not you, were misinformed. Well done. Having said that, I think the link to M-R is still overstated. I say this because of the Secret Protocol to the Pact, whereby the Soviets took a share of Poland as well as the Baltic States, etc. If Stalin was really worried about having to fight a long and debilitating war with Japan, why on earth would he have stretched his forces in that manner? In truth, I doubt he was, as every fight from the initial '38 clash resulted, accourding to my same sources, in a Russian defeat. Indeed, at the same time M-R was being signed, Stalin was wrapping up his own border offensive, which had ended in an impressive victory. And in September, as his tanks were rolling into Poland, Stalin signed a cease-fire with the Japanese. Moreover, when, at the final Nazi-Soviet negotiation session, which according to Shirer (pg. 71 , "was taken up mostly not by any hard bargaining but with a warm and friendly discussion of the state of the world, country by country, and with the inevitable effusive toasts customary at gala gatherings in the Kremlin," Stalin allowed himself, when asking Ribbentrop about the ambitions of Italy and Japan, to be put off by the latter's "breezy, reassuring answers." Thus, while it can be argued that Nomonhan was certainly in the back of Satlin's mind during the M-R negotiations, they hardly amount to the gun-in-the-back that you suggest. Again, the matter is more complicated than I conceived, and perhaps more than you feel the need to respond to.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at August 02, 2008 11:43 AM (cntKs)

33 Correction: "every fight from the initial '38 clash resulted, accourding to my same sources, in a Russian defeat," should read "in a Japanese defeat." I regret the error.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at August 02, 2008 11:45 AM (cntKs)

34 Sorry not to respond sooner, I was out of town for the weekend. So I don't know what you're willing to admit, but the argument is silly and just plain wrong. You think you're open-minded don't you? Or is this all about what you "feel the need to respond to" again? Mighty convenient, that dodge. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Bill made a stupid comment, I pointed out that it was stupid. You said that yeah, it was kind of dumb, but that some other theoretical argument might not be as dumb. You never actually made that argument, so I certainly never felt the need to respond. It isn't a dodge, I simply can't be expected to anticipate your points. The last part of your comment seems to argue that although sure, the Soviets and Japanese were fighting at the time of M-R, the Soviets didn't or shouldn't have considered the Japanese a serious threat. I don't think this is at all correct. The militarizing Japanese were in dire need of resources, and a faction of the General Staff wanted to aquire them by seizing large parts of Siberia. Extensive planning for such an invasion was in place by the time of M-R. The Japanese defeat in the border wars may have convinced them that they'd be better off looking elsewhere, but the existence of such plans indicates that the Soviets were right to consider Japan a legitimate threat.

Posted by: Larv at August 04, 2008 12:44 PM (6YCw9)

35 No worries, it's easy to vanish when real life calls you. "I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Bill made a stupid comment, I pointed out that it was stupid. You said that yeah, it was kind of dumb, but that some other theoretical argument might not be as dumb. You never actually made that argument, so I certainly never felt the need to respond. It isn't a dodge, I simply can't be expected to anticipate your points." I'm afraid you're not describing our conversation on this point accurately. Someone said "The Nazis were leftists, they made a pact with the Soviets, they called themselves Socialists," etc. You said "No they weren't, they killed Communist, and the Soviets made the deal cause they were fighting the Japanese at the time." I pointed out that Killing Leftists does not make one not a leftist. You responded that you felt no need to respond to a stupid argument with a smart one, and that anyone making the claim that the Nazis were leftists is just plain crazy. I responded to this last by pointing out where I was having this discussion, and that statements to just plain craziness is not a hallmark of an open mind or a good-faith argument (admittedly, I did this with a great deal of snark). So, if you're ready to have a bigger discussion, I told you where it was. If not, enh. As to the Secret Border War, yes, likely Stalin and the Red Army were keeping their eyes on the Japanese. But the fact that the Russians won every encounter and had indeed trounced the Japanese in Manchuria on the day before M-R was signed, coupled with the Secret Protocols, means that Stalin had other, Europe-centered reasons for entering into a pact with Hitler. So again, it's not the gun-to -the-head you think it was. But we could argue around this point all month.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at August 05, 2008 12:45 PM (cntKs)

36 You said "No they weren't, they killed Communist, and the Soviets made the deal cause they were fighting the Japanese at the time." Now who's describing things inaccurately? The existence of the non-aggression pact was put forth as evidence of the Nazi's leftist sympathies. I pointed out that both the Nazis and Soviets had perfectly good military/strategic reasons for signing the pact, and that there was no need to posit any sort of shared ideology to account for it. Particularly as there is, to my knowledge, absolutely zero support for such an interpretation. If you have any evidence that Stalin and Hitler signed M-R because of a shared political outlook, I'd love to see it. I pointed out that Killing Leftists does not make one not a leftist. Maybe not, but it does seem to indicate that one doesn't feel much ideological solidarity with them. I'll concede that I was dismissive of Bill's comment, but again, it was eminently dismissable as phrased. The Nazis were not "far to the left" in any way, shape, or form. They clearly positioned themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the actual German leftist parties like the Communists and Social Democrats. The Nazis, at least by the early '30s, were unquestionably aligned with the German right, even including the German Nationalist party in their coalition government. Are you really disputing this? I don't think I've been able to pin you down yet on whether you think it's correct to describe the Nazis as leftist. Do you? I'll retract the "crazy" appellation, but I'll continue to say that labeling the Nazis as a movement of the left is utterly without merit. If you think otherwise, you really have to provide some sort of affirmative argument to support your claim. And pointing me to another thread with several hundred comments doesn't really cut it. But the fact that the Russians won every encounter and had indeed trounced the Japanese in Manchuria on the day before M-R was signed, coupled with the Secret Protocols, means that Stalin had other, Europe-centered reasons for entering into a pact with Hitler. So again, it's not the gun-to -the-head you think it was. If you'll read my initial comment on the subject, I think you'll see that I mentioned reasons other than the Japanese threat, particularly the desire to gain territory in Europe. I never said, or even implied, that the Japanese threat was a "gun to the head". You took it upon yourself to claim that this threat was non-existent. It wasn't, and it simply doesn't matter whether Stalin feared actual defeat by the Japanese. Tying up part of his army in the far East would have been sufficient to cause enormous headaches to military planners, especially in a country the size of Russia. I appreciate the invite to join in on the other thread, but I don't really feel like wading through 250+ comments to get up to speed. I'm not that bored.

Posted by: Larv at August 05, 2008 02:38 PM (6YCw9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:25 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.

Glenn Reynolds is giving J.D. Johannes' Iraq War documentary trilogy Outside the Wire a big push this morning, noting that Amazon is bundling the film with Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq, which Glenn dubs the "Iraq War Honesty Pack."

It is probably worth adding Congressional Medal of Honor nominee David Bellavia's House to House, and My Men Are Heros, a book about Navy Cross nominee Brad Kasal to that list, but those are only scratching the surface of the material out there about the conflict and the men fighting it that you won't often see reported in the larger media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 2 kb.

The anti-war lawyer that defaced a Marine's car had his day in court.

Justice was served, and though the case is over, Google will remember him forever.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:20 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

In Morrisville, NC... my wife works nearby and says the helicopters are still overhead:

Morrisville police are at a Microtel hotel were they believe they have found the vehicle belonging to the killer of a pregnant Marine.

A nationwide manhunt is under way for Marine Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean, who is wanted for killing Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, 20. She was 8 ½ months pregnant at the time.

Video shows that license plates on the truck at the hotel matched those on a black Dodge pick up that police said belonged to Laurean. The hotel is off Airport Boulevard near Interstate 40.

Though near RDU International Airport, there is no indication he attempted to get a flight out of North Carolina, and the last suspected sighting of Laurean placed him in Louisiana.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Jay R. Grodner is a Chicago lawyer who apparently believes it is perfectly acceptable to vandalize a deploying Marine's car because of his own anti-war political beliefs.

Of course, the best way to handle the situation is by letting the authorities do their jobs, and commenter "Mo" at Blackfive has the excellent idea of contacting the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission:

One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
(312) 565-2600 or, within
Illinois, (800) 826-8625
Fax (312) 565-2320

One North Old Capitol Plaza
Suite 333
Springfield, IL 62701-1625
(217) 522-6838 or, within
Illinois, (800) 252-8048
Fax (217) 522-2417

It would seem that committing felony vandalism is a decent reason to have his license to practice law revoked.

The post also cites a police report that Grodner also apparently tried to state that the Marine only accosted him because he's Jewish (implying the Marine is a bigot).

Stay classy, Jay R. Grodner, Chicago attorney.

Bonus: He's already a big hit on Google.

I hope he enjoys the free advertising. He's earned it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:14 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What's ironic is that that sort of publicity will probably drive more anti-war whackos to become his clients.

Posted by: C-C-G at December 31, 2007 08:58 PM (ojkss)

2 At this rate, the SOB won't have a buisness for much longer.

Posted by: Foxfier at January 01, 2008 11:52 AM (D/3gQ)

3 What is especially funny is that everyone jumps to the "he did it because he is anti-military" conclusion as if he as a man who bills several hundred bucks per hour has nothing better to do than walk around looking for military license plates so he can vandalize their cars. Simple fact: the Marine was a douche for backing down a one-way, but certainly didn't deserve anything more than a "hey, obey the traffic laws!" yell. Of course the lawyer guy reacted in a criminal way. If it had been me that he had seen, he would have said "You think that just because you're tall, intelligent, and incredibly handsome, you can do whatever you want." To assume that he only did it because of the military plates is quite short-sighted and conspiracy-minded.

Posted by: Book Learned Guy at January 01, 2008 05:57 PM (+Dl24)

4 BLG, in order to prove that, you'd have to show that Mr. Grodner made a habit of keying cars who had violated traffic laws. Without such data being provided, the conclusion that the Marine's Department of Defense license plates were a primary reason that Mr. Grodner picked his car to key is valid. Also, if you'd read the B5 article that CY linked to, you'd know that the Marine reports that Mr. Grodner said, "you think you can do whatever you want with Department of Defense license plates and tags." That statement, if true, is also strong evidence for the conclusion that Mr. Grodner's anti-war feelings were a motivating factor in choosing to vandalize a Marine's car. Good day, sir. I said, good day.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 01, 2008 06:54 PM (ojkss)

5 the Marine was a douche for backing down a one-way Uh huh. That bastard! To assume that he only did it because of the military plates is quite short-sighted and conspiracy-minded. It isn't assuming when Grodner stated upon being caught "You think you can do whatever you want with Department of Defense license plates and tags" Reading is your friend, Book Learned Guy. You should do more of it, preferably before writing.

Posted by: Pablo at January 01, 2008 06:55 PM (yTndK)

6 Without such data being provided, the conclusion that the Marine's Department of Defense license plates were a primary reason that Mr. Grodner picked his car to key is valid. BTW, these were not DOD plates, but Illinois Specialty Plates. But Grodner seems to have confused that which leads to the next obvious question: Did Grodner think he was vandalizing DOD property? That would be tremendously stupid, and a federal crime.

Posted by: Pablo at January 01, 2008 06:59 PM (yTndK)

7 This lawyer, is a douchebag. I'll even go so far to say that anyone DEFENDING his actions, is also a douchebag. Seems to be an excess of douchebaggery on the left these days.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 01, 2008 07:22 PM (La7YV)

8 Either way, Pablo, it's indicative of Grodner's anti-war and anti-military bias and therefore, plausible motivations. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Posted by: C-C-G at January 01, 2008 07:32 PM (ojkss)

9 Yeah, I gotcha C-C-G. I'm just pointing our that this guy may be even dumber than it seems at first look. It almost a shame that he wasn't right about it being a DOD vehicle.

Posted by: Pablo at January 01, 2008 08:48 PM (yTndK)

10 Ahh, now I get where you were headed, Pablo. Yeah, that is a shame. But he was probably counting on President Hillary to pardon him if it was a DOD vehicle and he got caught. (evil grin)

Posted by: C-C-G at January 01, 2008 09:13 PM (ojkss)

11 Guy probably has a framed autographed picture of Alexis Fecteau on his night stand.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 01, 2008 10:42 PM (ERV3B)

12 Anyone really surprised an anti-war democrat would key a Marines car?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at January 01, 2008 10:55 PM (Lgw9b)

13 mayhaps someone ought to get into the cook county court tracking system so that this nit could be greeted every time he comes to court. as to his feeling persecuted because he says he is jewish, someone ought to find out what synagogue he goes to and send letters containing the story to the rabbi and to the board. this did not happen because he is jewish---and as a vet I would love the opportunity to discuss it with him publicly.

Posted by: velvel in decatur at January 02, 2008 12:41 PM (cOYYN)

14 as a vet i have noticed that this is how libs "support the troops"

Posted by: ozzzy4444 at January 02, 2008 04:25 PM (qGMwR)

15 o.k. my mom just pointed out to me that i am not a vet, i am a dependent (not the same thing), (my bad) however my point remaines valid.

Posted by: ozzzy4444 at January 02, 2008 04:39 PM (qGMwR)

16 "as if he ... has nothing better to do than walk around looking for military license plates so he can vandalize their cars" It was probably more along the lines of a "crime of opportunity" coupled with a momentary failure of his "better judgment" circuit not filtering the "stupid" from the "rational". "Simple fact: the Marine was a douche for backing down a one-way..." You don't live in Chicago, doya? Never spent much time there, dijja? Backing down one-way streets is a common occurence ... to get to parking spots or because you missed -- as this jarhead did -- the address of his buddy. It's not like this was an alleyway we're talking about, here, it was a normal Chicago street, two lanes wide with parallel parking on both curbs. It's just one-way. Backing down a one-way isn't a real hazard, and it doesn't indicate much in the way of "douchery", since pretty much everyone who owns a car in Chicago does it, more or less regularly.

Posted by: rwilymz at January 03, 2008 12:47 PM (2KK9O)

17 I find it funny that "Book Learned Guy's" most descriptive word for the marine is "douche." Apparently the book he reads is "The Frat-Star's Guide To Chugging Beer and Passing Out." And I don't buy BLG's theory that if it had been him the lawyer saw would have said "You think that just because you're tall, intelligent, and incredibly handsome, you can do whatever you want." Book Learned Guy may own books, but probably not any mirrors.

Posted by: Chicagoan at January 03, 2008 03:34 PM (8Lg5R)

18 A bigoted Jew and a lawyer. How disgusting!

Posted by: Max at January 04, 2008 12:14 AM (Y/e75)

19 Disbar him. Another example of the corrupt legal system.

Posted by: Ron at January 04, 2008 09:09 AM (AiJXe)

20 This guy should be DISBAR and still brought up on charges What ass hope the Attorney General can do something

Posted by: Jack at January 05, 2008 01:01 AM (zpOhj)

21 THE MARINE DID WHAT HE WAS TAUGHT TO DO: ADAPT, IMPROVISE AND OVERCOME - http://soldiersmind.com/2007/06/03/adapt-overcome-and-drive-forward/ You see, there are a lot of people living in this country who have NEVER worn the uniforms of service to the United States of America. Therefore, they do not understand the concept of "Adapt, Improvise and Overcome." We, the special few who have served in uniform and in combat situations understand this concept totally. We survive because of it. We know that those things that are difficult take a little longer to "fix." We also know that the impossible takes a little longer...But, we get the job done....SEMPER FI, MARINE!!!

Posted by: jOHN at January 05, 2008 12:37 PM (AiJXe)

22 Git a rope!

Posted by: Bubba at January 05, 2008 06:09 PM (RygMp)

23 Regardless of whose car it was, Grodner feels (knows?) he can commit a crime and then work the system and not be held responsible for his actions. Is he right? The AG's office has that answer.

Posted by: MSgt(ret) at January 05, 2008 09:48 PM (lCq3w)

24 This worthless officer was, correctly, immediately removed from any position of responsibility. Now someone needs to make sure he leaves with a less-than-honorable discharge to ensure he never gets back in to retire. This was not a one-time thing, but a six-month pattern of illegal behavior that disgraces his uniform and embarrasses all those who wear it. The taxpayers paid this douche for his ability to lead men in combat and serve as an example of honor & fidelity. The key issue here is: would you trust this asswipe to lead YOUR kids in combat? End of discussion. The real shame is that no one noticed his character flaws earlier.

Posted by: MSgt G. L. W. at January 06, 2008 03:53 AM (VSMyZ)

25 Isn't it odd how the back-patting AG's Office considers it "too time consuming" to follow-up on a valid, open complaint of flagrant felony vandalism voiced from a taxpaying citizen (as well as a defender of our nation), but that same AG will no doubt allow thousands and thousands of frivolous, time consuming civil cases to clog our court system day after day because that's what keeps their fellow lawyers rich, rich, rich beyond their wildest dreams. Whoever that AG or DA was that made that stupid, narrow-minded and self-serving comment deserves to be disbarred as fast as that mope Grodner should be as soon as he is convicted. This soldier should be served with a subpoena to appear in court, and the Marine Corps needs to honor that subpoena to allow justice to be served for him here in the United States just as his service in Iraq provides them there with the same. This outhouse lawyer needs to know that his kind is not above the law simply because he's a little more adept at playing the game. MSgt G. L. W. also needs to back-off and regroup with the hysterical rhetoric as well, unless he can provide clear-cut evidence of wrong on the part of the Officer in question. Respectfully Submitted, An Old US Army Soldier from the 'Burbs.

Posted by: beanhead54 at January 06, 2008 12:45 PM (PMOxQ)

26 This lawyer is a jerk and a waste of skin, but it's unfair and illogical to make him the poster boy for liberals, Democrats, or those who oppose the occupation of Iraq. If he'd vandalized a car with an anti-war bumper sticker, I wouldn't assume any conservative or Republican would commit the same crime. I'm against the occupation, but I'd never do that to anyone's car, and certainly not to someone risking his life to serve my country. It's abhorrent, and indefensible. But using the actions of one imbecile to attack millions of others for their opinions is hardly patriotic or American.

Posted by: Just My Opinion at January 06, 2008 10:52 PM (9kfFD)

27 MSgt G. L. W. - Are you a Marine / Solider / Airman? Would like to know. I personally know Mike, his brother Bill and some of their friends. I am a former Marine of ten years. Your post shows your true character. A wimp. This Marine, is a man of undisputed character and courage. He has been voluntarily in harms way as a Marine Reservist and volunteered to go back (which he is in the process of doing) to Iraq. Has seen numerous front line altercations. For you to make a statement that this officer (he is a Sgt, not an officer) and suggest that his honor and fidelity are in err, only makes me confident that you are presenting your post and self under the false solider act. You should watch your course. You could be libel. I would personally send my children to war with Mike and his brothers. They are why we have what we have. Freedom, not tryanny. Watch your mouth faker. We have this biggest faternity ever known and are well connected. Bigger than Notre Dame or any Ivy league school. Its called USMC. We take care of our own. Enough said

Posted by: teeitup at January 07, 2008 07:18 PM (QiL5C)

28 Some of us want to express our opinions to Mr. Grodner directly, but his website is down. All is not lost, however: If you go to www.yellow.com/white.html and in put his first and last names and his ZIP code (60626), you can find his contact information in case you want to write him or telephone him.

Posted by: Clifton Palmer McLendon at January 07, 2008 09:52 PM (bcsC8)

29 Interesting note:
Jay Grodner lives nine-tenths of a mile from a cemetery.

Posted by: Clifton Palmer McLendon at January 07, 2008 11:23 PM (bcsC8)

30 The "NEW" Jay Groder is David Selden of Az. This has to be read to be believed: Court will hide ID of illegal immigrant employer A federal court will keep secret the identity of an Arizona business owner who admits in a sworn statement to hiring illegal immigrants. The business owner, who remains anonymous, has filed an affidavit in federal court saying he was employing people not in this country legally last year when the lawsuit was filed, and he intends to continue to do so even with the new state law that took effect Jan. 1. That law allows a judge to suspend or revoke any state licenses of firms that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Attorney David Selden, who represents businesses challenging the law, said the purpose of the affidavit was to prove to U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake that the law will harm at least one company. The judge had previously indicated he might not be able to rule on the validity of the law without some proof someone could get in legal trouble for disobeying it. Selden said the move is justified because the business owner faces both the threat of prosecution if his identity becomes known, as well as the possibility of actual physical harm. LINK: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/105888 Here's Dave's info. Call him up and tell him how much you appreciate his efforts, and while your a it, find Dave's home number and post it so others can call him there and tell Dave how much like like his efforts in this are: http://www.ballardspahr.com/about/lawyers.asp?id=1855

Posted by: Ja at January 08, 2008 12:10 PM (G8g1Q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

¹In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ²(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ³And everyone went to his own town to register.

⁴So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. ⁵He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, ⁷and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 2:1-7

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:06 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Merry Christmas to you and yours! May your Christmas be filled with food, family, fun, and much love!

Posted by: Tara at December 24, 2007 11:44 AM (Dqxeq)

2 Merry Christmas, CCG.

Posted by: novanom at December 24, 2007 02:49 PM (clOBn)

3

Christmas cheer for you and all that you hold dear.

For you holiday music

Mannheim Steamroller Silent Night

Posted by: SlimGuy at December 24, 2007 07:29 PM (1aM/I)

4 Merry Christmas to you, Bob, and everyone here.

Posted by: Dusty at December 25, 2007 11:04 AM (GJLeQ)

5 The blessings of the Savior's birth to everyone here. Or, as a famous character put it, "God bless us, every one."

Posted by: C-C-G at December 25, 2007 11:11 AM (4tS0i)

6 Merry Christmas, one and all!

Posted by: Mark at December 25, 2007 11:38 PM (P8ylB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Now get of off the computer and spend some time with your family, will you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Now get of the computer......... You should probably get off the computer also...

signed... spell check monitor

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Posted by: Chuck at November 22, 2007 08:24 AM (zMH6A)

2 Back at ya, CY! Enjoy the cold Raleigh weather

Posted by: William Teach at November 22, 2007 09:00 AM (NaHh8)

3 The big bird is on the grill, the kids and I are watching "Miracle on 34th Street is on the telly, and I'm on the computer during comercial breaks.

Posted by: MikeM at November 22, 2007 03:43 PM (nyO8l)

4 ...passes Bob a big slice of pumpkin pie. Thank YOU, sir, for doing what you do here.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 22, 2007 07:33 PM (/fQMn)

5 Did so. I hope you had as great a time as I did. Time to get at those leftovers now. Apple pie for breakfast. Yum.

Posted by: Dusty at November 23, 2007 10:21 AM (GJLeQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As you are probably aware, were on our second week of raising funds to buy voice-controlled laptop computers for our wounded soldiers, in an online competition called Project Valour-IT.

More about the program, from Soldier's Angels:

Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops for severely wounded service members. As of October 2007, Valour-IT has distributed over 1500 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country.

Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support the purchase and distribution of laptops, but also offers a sponsorship option. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts.
Originally Valour-IT provided the voice-controlled software, but now works closely with the Department of Defense Computer/electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): CAP supplies the adaptive software and Valour-IT provides the laptop. In addition, DoD caseworkers serve as Valour-IT’s “eyes and ears” at several medical centers, identifying possible laptop recipients. Wounded military personnel can also directly request a laptop through the sign-up form or through the Valour-IT/Soldiers' Angels representatives at the following medical centers:

* Balboa Naval Hospital

* Brooke Army Medical Center

* Madigan Regional Medical Center

* National Naval Medical Center (Bethesda Naval Hospital)

* Naval Hospital, Camp Pendleton

* Robert E. Bush Naval Hospital (29 Palms)

* Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Thanks to the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Valour-IT is also able to reach patients in VA hospitals who would benefit from a Valour-IT laptop.

So here is what I'm asking of you, Confederate Yankee readers.

As was noted with unerring accuracy on a whiteboard somewhere in Iraq, "America is not at war. The Marines are at war. America is at the mall."

In addition to our Marines, of course, are tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen, all putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sometimes, those lives get shattered.

But there is something you can do. As part of "Team Air Force" I'd like to ask for Confederate Yankee readers to donate five dollars to Project Valour-IT. That's it. Just five bucks.

So many times I've caught myself almost donating to a worthy cause, and then I didn't, because our budget was tight that month. I wanted to donate a "worthwhile" amount, and was ashamed to offer the small amount I could possibly afford. Sound familiar?

But even on my worst day, I could squeeze five bucks out of my thin wallet for a worthy cause, even if I wish I had $50 or $500 to give. And so that's what I'm asking of you: five bucks.

Five bucks from every CY reader would be able to buy a voice-activated laptops for one of our brave wounded soldiers so that he can communicate with loved ones.

So please, donate just five bucks via the button below. Because they deserve it.

Because everything matters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:28 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 4 kb.

1 This is a wonderful project and last year my college club (I am an advisor) gave Valor IT close to $700. This year we are making gift boxes and this saturday we are going to be at Bethesda handing them out.

Posted by: David at November 05, 2007 10:28 AM (K8BtQ)

2 Done, Dude, but I had to give some to Navy, too. BTW, how come your blog isn't listed at Project Valour-IT under AF Team?

Posted by: Dusty at November 05, 2007 05:32 PM (GJLeQ)

3 As my blog is a member of the Navy team, Dusty, I'll say thank you.

Posted by: C-C-G at November 05, 2007 08:07 PM (PGjzz)

4 LOL, CCG. Welcome.

Posted by: Dusty at November 05, 2007 11:00 PM (GJLeQ)

5 Since I met Chuck himself (and went shootin' with him) at the Gunbloggers Rendezvous I had to go with the Infantry - even though my dad went to Annapolis.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 06, 2007 12:50 PM (VNM5w)

6 Zoomies unite! I'm happy to hit the jar.

Posted by: Pablo at November 06, 2007 06:39 PM (yTndK)

7 Consider the jar hit.

Posted by: J at November 09, 2007 11:23 AM (xkl0e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And to think, I wasn't even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric.

I'm now selling "smug offsets" via Paypal.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:58 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If they did, you would be a leading candidate to win a Nobel Prize.

Posted by: Pug at October 12, 2007 08:55 AM (r5zYa)

2 Best part is all the wacko sites talking about him also winning the 2000 presidential race and a Oscar, neither of which is true. Whooohooo Gore. Now in the same class as Arafat and Carter. Hey pug, frederick. It's funnier if there is some truth to it. Your doing the equivalent of making a cigar joke about Bush.

Posted by: buzz at October 12, 2007 10:50 AM (PZ/ZS)

3 CY, No, the award isn't *for* anything anymore. It's debased itself into a credential in the authoritarian mutual-admiration society. It has drawn close to the Lenin Peace Prize, and so it completely discounted. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at October 12, 2007 11:44 AM (Ohkx7)

4 Sarcastic jealousy, how surprising and refreshing. Yawn. If your little chimperor had won it you'd be shouting from the rooftops about how great an honor it is and blah blah blah. I know it must be painful watching your small-minded world fall apart.

Posted by: leaf at October 12, 2007 11:52 AM (x7n0a)

5 Actually, the Right has been saying that the Nobel Prize is now meaningless for years. This is hardly a new thing.

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 12:12 PM (rfcTY)

6 I know the last few comments are from tbagg readers, so I'll try to use small words: Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear. While we know global warming is in fact occurring, that isn't the end of the world. As a matter of pure fact, global warming and cooling are natural parts of long-term life on earth, and has been happening longer than there has been primates, much less the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on. The Goracle wants to blame people for warming, and indeed they may play a small part, but the earth warms and cools primarily because of the activity of the sun, geologic events, and asteroid impacts, events far beyond our control. This we know for real science, not flawed climate models and politicals agendas. As for the Nobel itself, it has been steadily cheapened in past years... Awarding it to terrorists cheapened it, at least among normal people, as does award a peace prize for someone who has done nothing for you know, peace, which has become the new un-standard. That it would be awarded to a man who produced a documentary every bit as factually accurate as Loose Change just put the final nail in the coffin lid.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (0BhZ5)

7 Grey Fox, Of course they have. The last thing the military industrial complex wants is peace.

Posted by: Me at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (pZtEm)

8 Wow. Who knew that someone with a Masters in English would have such deep research knowledge and experience around global climate change and would be able to definitively tell ALL of us what is "real science" and what is "junk." Boy, sorry to have questioned such genius. Forget all those climatologists and other respected scientists with their Ph.Ds from prestigous universities who all agree that human activity is a major contributor to global climate change and that it's far from just normal cyclical activity. From now on, I'm going to trust those with Masters in English and people with Associates in HVAC and accounting who blog for a living! Well-educated, globally-respected, research-experienced scientists BE GONE!

Posted by: notforsalethanks at October 12, 2007 12:43 PM (MyDKI)

9 If the Nobel Committee were composed of remotely serious people, the prize would go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Posted by: Mahon at October 12, 2007 12:44 PM (oFhek)

10 And how exactly, pray tell, is Gore contributing to "peace"? How about those Burmaese Monks, or Chinese democracy advocates? I respect the NPP when it goes to someone who actually deserves it. Arafat received it for Chrissakes, not to mention El-Barradi and if we want to go way back, the leader of North Vietnam, Le Duc Tho, who celebrated this achievement by swallowing the South and driving refugees into the sea and the rest into re-education camps.

Posted by: Techie at October 12, 2007 12:53 PM (T+8Gr)

11 Goracle also dis-honored, by a British High Court judge: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do

Posted by: tjmmz01 at October 12, 2007 03:20 PM (dAzoD)

12 What does global warming have to do with peace?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:51 PM (Lgw9b)

13 Shouldn't we rename this the "Yasser Arafat reward?"

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:53 PM (Lgw9b)

14 Gore won what? Yawn

Posted by: SShiell at October 12, 2007 04:23 PM (8UXyu)

15 Who said that peace is meaningless? The AWARD is meaningless. Wish folks would learn to read. I might also point out that Global Warming is an "enemy" that the Left is saying we must fight as well...Those who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones!

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 05:25 PM (rfcTY)

16 Sillys. The Norwegians awarded Mr. Gore and the UN IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in the expectation that their efforts may well prevent the climate wars of the future. This decision was made by plain speaking, down to earth people, you know - morons (bastardized from Blazing Saddles). The intense research conducted by the Norwegians included a marathon session during which they consumed massive quantities of regular soda while watching: The Day After Tommorow, Armagedon and Waterworld. The decision was made all the more rivetting as they were not allowed to go to the bathroom until they voted.

Posted by: davod at October 12, 2007 05:36 PM (llh3A)

17 Peace Prize? I thought the global warming debate was all about science.

Posted by: MikeM at October 12, 2007 05:43 PM (nyO8l)

18 Did some posts disappear?

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 06:10 PM (rfcTY)

19 "The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on." That may be, but then again, at that time there weren't hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying coastal areas, who would be forced to relocate if the sea levels continue to rise. No one was around to experience the increased hurricane levels. Species always adapt, that's just a given.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 07:56 PM (N8M1W)

20 How many recounts were there before Gore got the result he wanted?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 12, 2007 08:47 PM (0pZel)

21 Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling. Can global climate change in 30 years? And if so, who's to say that in 2030 we won't be worried about global cooling again?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 10:11 PM (ufhAS)

22 C-C-G, Rumor has it that they are beginning to worry about Global Cooling NOW. That is why a lot of folks are talking about "climate change" instead of "global warming." Fact is, they just don't really know whats happening.

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 11:09 PM (rfcTY)

23 Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 11:38 PM (ufhAS)

24 "Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall." Right, because heavy snowfall or cooler weather on a particular day in a particular location discounts in any way whatsoever the notion of global warming. "Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling." There was a downturn in global temps in that time period but the overall trend over the last 150 years has been that it's getting warmer, and there's little doubt that it will continue in that direction, given the current rate of fossil fuel consumption.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 11:58 PM (N8M1W)

25 Riiiiiiiight Arbotreeist. That's why they have to use such tactics as placing temperature recording stations next to air conditioner exhausts and over burn barrels.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 12:37 AM (ufhAS)

26 My, now we're getting into some tin-foil hat territory, aren't we? And here I thought that was the sole province of us liberals?

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:46 AM (N8M1W)

27 I hear up until the 1940's or thereabouts, they used to put these temperature recording devices next to wood stoves or even warm cowpies to throw off the readings. Those devious climate researchers. Thank God for AC units, makes the job that much easier.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:53 AM (N8M1W)

28 Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations. Recording stations whose data is used to "prove" global warming.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 01:01 AM (ufhAS)

29 Conservatives from year 2000 called and they want their line of argument back. The jury's in on the fact that global warming is happening. Even Bush has admitted the reality of it, albeit grudgingly. The current argument among conservatives is whether humans are the ones causing it, or nature. And if you're really on the cutting edge of conservative thinking, it's conceded that global warming is happening, it's human-caused, but maybe, they say, global warming could actually be a positive development...kind of like the idea Fox news floated about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq being "a good thing".

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 01:28 AM (N8M1W)

30 Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations. Precisely how did he prove that, CCG? By not answering your question? If somebody decides not to engage with you on your terms and your terms only, that proves that you're right and they're wrong?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:51 AM (lJF4u)

31 CCG, I'm counting fewer than fifteen stations on that list. How many stations are there in all? Thousands? And this tiny sample is what you're basing your argument on? This word "proof" you use, senor, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:58 AM (lJF4u)

32 Actually, that is but one piece of the evidence against mankind causing global warming. But, since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results, clearly you're deciding the "results" first and then gathering your chosen "data" later. The Vatican would have loved you two a few hundred years ago when they were insisting the sun revolved around the earth, ya know.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 10:59 AM (ufhAS)

33 since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results Don't put words in my mouth. Sure, this kind of thing skews the results. There are some who say that merely making the observations skews the results at some quantum level. The question, though, would be how much the results are skewed. I would submit that the "proof" you have offered up is but an infinitesimal portion of all the weather readings that have been taken around the planet over the course of decades.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:47 AM (lJF4u)

34 Another Questionable War Story: Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight" - No comments at all? Just another liberal Bush-basher who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Gen. Sanches, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq)

Posted by: he at October 13, 2007 01:51 PM (H2NPa)

35 "Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear." - Confederate Yankee. Unsupported? What about the millions in the scientific community that have been saying what he says already, and are currently applauding him for bringing so much attention to the issue with his well-stated documentary? Why do you try to mislead, sarcastically, by claiming it's unsupported and "junk science" - when the issues have been in numerous scientific journals across the world? Do you know what "junk science" even means?! I wonder... It's not "fear." He was promoting awareness on a subject that scientists have been talking about for a long time. And he succeeded. Infact, that is the very reason he got the Peace Prize. Just because YOU don't think recycling makes sense, or that because the world has been warm before we don't need to worry about the consequences of our uniquely wasteful actions, doesn't mean that's true either. By the way, for fear tactics.. Look towards the current oil-war and how we got into it, for a quick lesson on "how to instill fear in the public."

Posted by: Jar at October 13, 2007 02:39 PM (ZMXWA)

36 Jar, lots of scientists thought the sun revolved around the world at one time. Majority opinion does not science make.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 02:49 PM (ufhAS)

37 Jar and nunaim and Arbotreeist - How have Gore and his AGW sycophants proved their hypothesis. It's my understanding that when scientists come up with a hypothesis, they design tests to prove the hypothesis. Take for example Hansen and his cabal who control all the raw temperature data and the algorithms for smoothing them. He also developed a model to describe the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. His goal was to plot a line which described the best historical fit. He then assumed causation instead of just correlation. How did he design tests of that causation theory holding all other variable constant? Was it even tested? Is it even possible to test?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 04:54 PM (0pZel)

38 Using your logic, then, daleyrocks, all of science's ideas about volcanoes and earthquakes must be wrong--a conspiracy by the pro-temblor and lava cabal--because they're describing phenomena instead of creating them.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 06:13 PM (lJF4u)

39 nunaim - Using your words, "Don't put words in my mouth." Can you answer the questions or not? I'm not interested in your deflection. The subject is anthropogenic global warming. We've got computer models telling us about various relationships between things and a lot of rabid believers in the computer models. Those believers want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and change our lifestyles? Is all we've got computer models tightly controlled by a small group of people who also control the data or has actual testing of the hypothesis been done, you know, in accordance with the scientific method? The AGW supporters should be able to answer these questions.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 06:22 PM (0pZel)

40 What I really wanna know about those models, Daley, is can they accurately predict the weather next week? If they can't (and we all know how fallible weather forecasting is), then why should we trust what they say will happen next year or next decade?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 06:43 PM (ufhAS)

41 I must say, Jar, nunaim, and Arbortreeist are proving themselves good disciples of Gore's new religion. "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," Gore said in comments e-mailed by his office 44 minutes after the prize was announced at 5 a.m. Eastern time. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level." Spiritual challenge, Gracie? Sounds like he is setting himself up as Pope of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming. And I am sure Pope Gore will give you three a good price on indulgences... er... carbon offsets.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 07:13 PM (ufhAS)

42 CCG - It all sounds like a lot of guess work to me and that they're praying everyone believes them. Isn't religion the belief in the unknowable? It sounds like this qualifies to me with what they've got.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 07:41 PM (0pZel)

43 Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 08:10 PM (0pZel)

44 I hear Ben Stein's voice...

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:17 PM (ufhAS)

45 ccg another good question of the models has always been can they be run in reverse? In other words, take current conditions and past data and predict past climate. my understanding is that they cannot be run in reverse, which would be a serious flaw to my mind.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 13, 2007 08:20 PM (9BPe+)

46 Excellent point, Iconoclast. I would also be interested in seeing if they can take data from, say, 13 Oct 2006 and then predict the weather for today, 13 Oct 2007. Of course, the fact that there is very little if any data from tests like this kinda gives one the impression that said tests have not been run, perhaps because the pseudo-scientists pushing this know what the results would be.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:23 PM (ufhAS)

47 Speaking of red herrings and deflections, the pro-climate-change crowd (present company included) serves up a heaping helping of both each time they put fingers to keyboard. Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models. Pollution is bad. Car exhaust is bad. The crap that spews out of smokestacks is likewise bad. How do we know? It makes you sick if you have to breathe a lot of it. There are more and more cars and smokestacks all the time. That means that there's more bad stuff going into the air every day, which means more unsafe air advisories in places like LA (unless you think that unsafe air advisories are also a left-wing conspiracy, which opinion would not surprise me in the least). Trying to stop the process from spiraling out of control is not a bad thing, and "spiraling" is the word I mean to use--population does not undergo linear growth, but speeds up as it takes place. Thus, all the pollution-producing things that people use get used more in the same proportion. More people equals more cars equals more pollution put into the air. That's the bottom line. That's the deal, shorn of all the crapola of arguments about weather stations set up over blacktop. Those of you who argue against who argue against climate change are essentially saying, "People cannot pollute the environment to any degree that we need to bother ourselves with it." You are, in essence, pro-pollution, because, after all, that's what the climate change people are trying to curb: pollution. But you're not really pro-pollution, are you? I'd be stunned if you were. That's why the very existence of this argument is baffling to me. How can anyone seriously argue against preserving--and heck, maybe even improving--the place we live?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:03 PM (7Cmj1)

48 nunaim, if you're gonna complain about red herrings, don't serve one up yourself.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:35 PM (ufhAS)

49 Red herring? Hardly. How? This is what the whole thing is about. The arguments are distractions from the main point, which is this: what do we do about our pollution? Or, more to the point, do you even care about our pollution? Red herring? What a lame response... Now, if I were doing things the way you generally do them, I would take this opportunity to say, "So, CCG, you do not deny that you are pro-pollution. Therefore, you are." But I won't, because it would be beneath me.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:45 PM (7Cmj1)

50 nunaim, you are clearly an idiot. Pollution and global warming are not directly connected. The theory of anthropogenic global warming assumes that carbon dioxide is causing the warming, not pollution, which is mostly solid, not gaseous carbon. You really have no friggin' idea what you are talking about, and you're making yourself look very very stupid.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:52 PM (ufhAS)

51 You're really grasping here. In my post I specifically mention carbon-producing sources. Pretending that I didn't doesn't make it so. So answer my question. You're pro-pollution, aren't you? You like the idea of sending crap into the atmosphere.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 10:54 PM (7Cmj1)

52 nunaim, you're the one that is grasping. Equating solid carbon particles from smoke and pollution with carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life on this planet (plants need it) is such a stupid mistake that it's clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of the science involved. If you had any cojones you'd admit that you made a mistake, but you don't, so you won't.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:02 PM (ufhAS)

53 Also, CCG: Why are you afraid to address the real issue facing us, rather than the phony issue? I'm tempted to think that it's because with the phony issue, you can spend your days looking for web sites that document the fact that fifteen poorly-placed weather stations might conceivably skew data one-quintillionth of a percentage point. That stuff's safer for you because, whatever somebody on the other side says, you can always shriek, "Nuh-UH! Junk science! Rammafrazzle global warming conspiracy!" and, I guess, you get off on that. When it comes right down to the actual root issues, however--issues like "do we want to continue spewing carbon into the air via automobiles and power plants and so on?" you're afraid to engage. You pull out your thesaurus and complain about "red herrings" and "deflections" and base your entire argument on the fact that I used the word "pollution" to refer to atmospheric contamination from carbon sources. Actually addressing the root issues that drive the whole debate are, I reckon, too difficult and, therefore, too scary for you to do.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:05 PM (7Cmj1)

54 nunaim - Carbon dioxide is really not a pollutant even though the EPA has been given a mandate to regulate it in certain ways. CO2 serves a necessary function on this planet for many things. The topic on this thread is global warming, not pollution, hurricanes, volcanoes, plate tectonics or other things you may keep trying to shift toward. Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists should have knocked most of the people off the IPCC as their expertise was not strictly climate. If the rule you are trying to advance is that you should not discuss a topic unless you are an expert, I suggest you stay off this board. I haven't seen a hint of expertise or mastery of a subject from you yet. Why are you afraid to discuss the basics of global warming? Is it because you know nothing or because you know there's nothing there?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:14 PM (0pZel)

55 See what I mean about not having enough cojones to admit a mistake? Your entire argument boils down to: pollution is bad, global warming is bad, therefore pollution must cause global warming. By the same logic, I could say crime is bad, pollution is bad, therefore crime causes pollution. You make a nonsensical argument and then defend it to the death... you should apply at The New Republic... I hear there's at least one position open.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:17 PM (ufhAS)

56 CCG, you will never, ever, EVER win by playing the word game with me. Reading your posts is like listening to some pain-in-the-butt seventh grader play Jailhouse Lawyer: "You said that I had to sit down, but you never told me that I had to sit in my seat!" Both of you think you're getting somewhere, but all it makes you look like is that you've dug deep into your barrel of smarts and come up empty-handed. Let's strip away all the little things that so easily distract you: why are you a proponent of increasing carbon emissions?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:18 PM (7Cmj1)

57 nunaim, we're neither of us gonna play your little red herring game. So don't bother trying to lump all carbon emissions together.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:24 PM (ufhAS)

58 Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists Nice attempt to twist my words into something that suits your needs. Unfortunately, your baldfaced lie is showing. My suggestion was that since we aren't (to my knowledge) climate scientists, that we approach the topic in a way that can be discussed fruitfully by non-climate scientists. Why, daleyrocks, are you in favor of increasing carbon emissions?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:28 PM (7Cmj1)

59 CCG - nunaim is playing out the latest lefty talking point. You see it on other blogs. When they can't defend the basics of the AGW argument, they have been instructed to steer the discussion to pollution in general in an attempt to fool people. Only the truly gullible fall for this transparent attempt to shift the conversation away from Captain Planet's Holy Grail. Is water pollution part of the global warming discussion now or nunaim's point? How can you leave water pollution out if you are talking about things that are bad for mankind? Has that been factored into the AGW models? Just more attempts at shape shifting to avoid the basic subject. Notice how he has still avoided answering questions.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:29 PM (0pZel)

60 CCG: You're absurdly insistent that I answer your questions. Remember that? Remember how you demanded again and again that I answer some question that I had already answered? You won't even pretend to answer my questions. Ever. In the Old Country, we called that "being a yellowbelly."

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:32 PM (7Cmj1)

61 nunaim - The thread is about Al Gore and AGW: "Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models." To my knowledge he is not a climatologist or a scientist and I do not think he has much credibility on the subject, yet he just won a nobel prize for his work in the area. I figure if he can talk about it I can talk about it. America is the land of opportunity. What are you afraid of here? Do you need to consult your current talking points again?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:35 PM (0pZel)

62 nunaim, you remember how CY reacted last time we played this game? I learn from my mistakes; apparently you don't.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:36 PM (ufhAS)

63 Hey, daleyrocks... drop me a line at the email on my blog if you'd like to talk away from nunaim.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:41 PM (ufhAS)

64 Death to volcanoes!

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 14, 2007 02:09 AM (s4ZqU)

65 Well, then, it looks like I've been beaten once again by your strategy of not actually engaging if the interaction isn't precisely on your terms. It's effective yet lame. And I can see your point, daleyrocks: the whole thread is about Gore. Isn't he the one who set up those weather stations that CCG is going on about? Anyway, now I'm scared. CCG informs me on his site that he pretty much knows where I live. That sounds like a veiled threat to me. I'd better beat a hasty retreat before he comes to the city where I work and finds me somehow and puts a burning bag of dog poop on the front doorstep. The fact remains that those of you who fight so strenuously against the whole climate change thing are, for some mysterious reason, actally for degradation of our environment. I can't imagine why, since you live here, too. If you ever feel like explaining your position (since, after all, it is the very root of the discussion you're having here), I'll be all ears. Remember: Gore's Nobel is nice for Gore, but it's not the biggest problem we face in this, our life.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 09:46 AM (YHa1b)

66 Hey, nunaim, here's something else you, Algore, and the rest of the AGW pseudo-scientists have to answer: Mars is warming too, and faster than the Earth. So tell me, are the Martians driving SUVs? Did they elect a Republican President? Did Halliburton open a branch on Mars? Or could it be, just perhaps, that the warming is being caused by something exterior to both Mars and Terra? Something like, oh, I dunno, THE SUN?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 11:05 AM (ufhAS)

67 The lib comments are a perfect example of how "global warming" has become their religion. There is no debate, the proof is in, to deny is to sin. If you disagree with their mahdi AlGore, you're a heathen that hates the earth, and must be sleeping with most of the board of Haliburton. The whole debate isn't about the earth and it's NATURAL cycles anymore to these gaea worshippers, it's about destroying the way of life of the US through decimation of it's key industries. The fact that AlGore was awarded a peace prize for a movie about him giving a speech in front of a crappy slideshow, is proof positive that this "award" is a joke now. Arafat?, 'nuff said.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 14, 2007 12:19 PM (La7YV)

68 Conservative CRJ: If you've bothered reading the posts up above, you've seen that I've tried to look past the bread and circuses represented by Gore and get at the root issues that Gore is addressing. The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions. There are a few possibilities for this: A. They're against decreasing carbon emissions simply because it's something that Lefties want. B. They don't believe that carbon emissions exist. C. They think that it is literally impossible for human-produced carbon emissions to have any negative effect on the planet. D. They are glad that carbon emissions will have a negative effect. E. They think that carbon emissions will actually have a positive effect on the planet. This would be a more productive direction for the conversation than any of these: A. Prattling on about red herrings and deflections. B. Snarking about SUVs on the planet Mars. C. Trying to conduct a highly technical discussion out of our fields of expertise. (I'm assuming, again, that none of us involved in this discussion are climate scientists. If I'm wrong, please set me straight.) D. Cracking open the old chestnut about how everything that Lefties feel strongly about (but that the Right doesn't) is a liberal "religion." The whole AGW topic can, in fact, be discussed rationally without descending into the arcane matters of sample size, computer models and data skews. To do so, however, would be to confront the wellsprings of one's beliefs/prejudices/whatever without the security blanket of snark and other evasive maneuvers. That's too much to ask, apparently.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:55 PM (YHa1b)

69 Sorry--"Conservative CBU," I should have written. Life is more difficult when I'm not wearing my glasses.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:56 PM (YHa1b)

70 nunaim, I would answer your question if it had any relevance. It does not. And you're looking like a 5-year-old who doesn't get his way on the playground. If that's the image you want to project, fine, but don't expect to be treated as an adult as long as you're acting like that. A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 01:07 PM (ufhAS)

71 CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours: "The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions." I don't recall saying anything of the sort, I have merely been questioning the AGW jihadis who want us to change our entire way of life and redistribute global income based on what I see as questionable science, data and computer modeling. nunaim has presented nothing to strengthen the pro-AGW argument nor did I expect him to. Al Gore tellingly refuses to debate the subject just as nunaim has here. Nunaim reverted to an "air pollution makes you sick if you breath enough of it," how can you be in favor of pollution argument, which somehow translates to global warming. Again, I'm not propollution, but I don't like the greenhouse gas effect from biofuels, which he doesn't address, water pollution, other types of pollution, but I am in favor of cost benefit analysis. If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet. I know progressives are all about feelings, but its a tough way to rationalize spending hundreds of billions of dollars, redistributing the worlds wealth, and changing the way we live. I'd like to see a little more critical examinination of the hypothesis in this country instead of the censorship we've had by the media and the academy.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 02:13 PM (0pZel)

72 CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours: You really didn't expect a lefty to play by the same rules he demands we play under, did you?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:07 PM (ufhAS)

73 For those of you who cannot connect global climate change and world peace in context to everything that is going on in the world today, may God help you for being so ignorant.

Posted by: john bryan at October 14, 2007 03:20 PM (v9dwy)

74 A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument. Nobody of note is saying that humans are behind all climate change; rather, that they are exacerbating the situation. Question answered; straw man trampled underfoot; argument still intact.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:29 PM (YHa1b)

75 I am in favor of cost benefit analysis Now we're getting somewhere. The next question would be what you see as the costs and benefits of either curbing emissions or letting them grow.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:31 PM (YHa1b)

76 nunaim, if we are not behind climate change, then how can any of the proposals pushed by you gaia-worshipers stop it? Answer: they can't. Here's a few more facts about your Dear Leader Algore that you might consider, courtesy Investor's Business Daily: • He [Gore] conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming. • His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end. • Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years. Fascinating, hmmm? Perhaps if you paid attention to the facts instead of the hype, you'd not look like such a fool.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:35 PM (ufhAS)

77 CCG - Now we've got John Bryan suggesting that Iraq is not a War for Oil, but a War for Global Warming? Unbelievable! What will these folks think of next. Nunaim keeps bobbing and weaving, the Hamster Dance, never engage. The meathead doesn't understand that you can't get to the point of a cost benefit analysis unless you buy into the premises of the AGW hypothesis, which he refuses to discuss. He's a human mobius strip on this. He can't break out of his loop.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 04:15 PM (0pZel)

78 Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, daleyrocks, but when I read this: If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet. That implies to me that you believe either that carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative. If we are to discard the predictions that you deride, then that's what we're left with. Am I correct? I'm trying to engage productively here, but we need to agree what we're talking about before we can get anywhere.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 04:51 PM (YHa1b)

79 nunaim, there are many different forms of "damage to the planet," and we are discussing only one: global warming. Please quit with the red herrings. We know you've caught your limit, and want to show them off, but please consider us duly impressed with your red herring skill.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 05:13 PM (ufhAS)

80 CCG - He's still doing it: "carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative" The thread is about AGW and he is talking about "negative effects," dodging the issue once more. I don't see the words warming or temperature in his latest comment. He's still where he was last night where he tried to side track the thread - because he breathes pollution and pollution makes you sick so it is bad so we have to stop it. Do you think I can get a Nobel Prize for that logic train too? You need a license to be as stupid and dishonest as nunaim and not institutionalized, don't you?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 05:14 PM (0pZel)

81 I note that nunaim has been blessedly silent recently.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2007 08:01 PM (ufhAS)

82 CCG - Trying to divert the thread to a discussion of air quality from air temperature is a complete red herring. I'm pretty convinced the Bozo knows that and deliberate, but he could be too stupid too understand.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 12:24 AM (0pZel)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Think back to your college days, and imagine this scenario:

You wake up on morning to discover that flyers speaking of hatred towards a minority group are plastered all over campus, and written at the bottom of the flyer is information that frames a group you belong to as the authors.

Sadly, this is not a hypothetical situation.

What should happen to the group of radicals that attempted to frame a student group with what most rational people would construe as hate speech?

The student group targeted has an idea, buased upon commits first posited by the Student Association Executive Vice President. Only time will tell if the university has the integrity to act swiftly and justly in dealing with this slanderous attack.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:17 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.