McIntire Show

It was a good show. Here's the view from my chair:


And John, Gab and Sean Collier:

In Religion News

From The Washington Post:

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled Thursday that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

National Day of Prayer "goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context," U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb wrote. "In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience. . . .

Of course the wingnuts will disregard the opinion because she was nominated by a democrat president. A one term democrat president, no less. The one term democrat president Ronald Reagan saved the country from. Yea, Jimmy Carter nominated Crabb in 1979.

This is from page 4:

It bears emphasizing that a conclusion that the establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious exercise is not a judgment on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power. No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. “And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of th[e] history [of humans] many people have devoutly believed that ‘More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.'” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 433 (1962). However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision whether and when to pray.

From the conclusion:

I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to “carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy. It is important to clarify what this decision does not prohibit. Of course, “[n]o law prevents a [citizen] who is so inclined from praying” at any time. Wallace, 472 U.S. at 83-84 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). And religious groups remain free to “organize a privately sponsored [prayer event] if they desire the company of likeminded” citizens. Lee, 505 U.S. at 629 (Souter, J., concurring). The President too remains free to discuss his own views on prayer. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 723 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The only issue decided in this case is that the federal government may not endorse prayer in a statute as it has in §119.

Something tells me the wingnuts ain't gonna like this.

Um, What?

The Tribune-Review's got a new BFF - Dick Morris. Take a look:

Pennsylvania will be the "epicenter" of sweeping change that's coming in national elections this fall, political strategist and author Dick Morris told a gathering of 500 conservatives Friday night.

Morris was the keynote speaker at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the premier annual gathering for grassroots activists and groups touting conservative causes.

The former adviser to President Clinton, and a favorite of many conservatives for his stinging rebukes of the Clintons and of President Obama, predicted Republicans will sweep the House and Senate races to take control of Congress, stop the health care law in its tracks and force a government shutdown when Obama vetoes the reversal.

Wow. That's a serious prediction, isn't it? Dick Morris must have made a career out of making serious predictions that came true, right? I mean to be invited to the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference and all. They must be interested in what he's written in the past, right?

I guess the folks over there missed this prediction from a book he co-wrote in 2005:

On January 20, 2009, at precisely noon, the world will witness the inauguration of the forty-fourth president of the United States. As the chief justice administers the oath of office on the flag-draped podium in front of the U.S. Capitol, the first woman president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, will be sworn into office. By her side, smiling broadly and holding the family Bible, will be her chief strategist, husband, and copresident, William Jefferson Clinton.

Then he amends his prediction:

But her victory is not inevitable. There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State Condoleezza "Condi" Rice. Among all of the possible Republican candidates for president, Condi alone could win the nomination, defeat Hillary, and derail a third Clinton administration.

Wow. Impressive.

So when Dick Morris writes this on the pages of the same Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

The Obama health care initiative will be the biggest unfunded federal mandate on the states in history. It will force dozens of states, particularly in the South, to abandon their low-tax ways and to move toward dramatically higher rates of taxation. It may even force Florida and Texas to impose an income tax!

We know he's full of crap, right?

Take a look at this chart from the Tax Policy Center. If I am reading it correctly, it's saying that no one making less than $500,000 per year will see a tax increase. No one.

Tell me again why we should trust this Dick?

And Now A Word From Jon Stewart

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tea America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Return Announcement

I know I'm not on the poster:
But I'll be a part of the show tomorrow.

Should be fun.

Let's go to the video tape!

Bill O'Lielly claims that nobody ever said on Fox News that people will go to jail if they don't buy health insurance. Right...

Um, Maybe They Should Look At This Guy

The AP (by way of the Cybercast News Service) is reporting:

Organizers of tax-day tea parties are preparing for their biggest day of the year Thursday, as thousands of demonstrators participate in local rallies against high taxes and big government spending. But the leaders are striving to keep the rallies from presenting another image: one of fringe groups, extremists or infiltrators obsessed with hateful messages.

Sensitive that poor public perception could sink their movement, some rally planners have uninvited controversial speakers, beefed up security and urged participants to pack cameras to capture evidence of any disrupters. Organizers want to project a peaceful image of people upset by a growing and burdensome federal government.

"We don't want to be misrepresented, whether it's by someone who is not part of the group and has their own agenda, or whether it's by some fringe extremist who may actually be a racist," said Jim Hoft, a political blogger and tea party activist who is one of the speakers for a rally in suburban St. Louis.

Maybe they should take a look at this guy in Ohio:

Police are searching for a local Tea Party leader in Ohio who is wanted for violating a temporary protection order. Meanwhile, speakers at a Tea Party rally organized by the man, Brian "Sonny" Thomas, have pulled out after he suggested in a tweet that he wanted to shoot Hispanic immigrants -- then blaming it on a Bee Gees song.

Thomas is the founder and president of the Springboro Tea Party in southwest Ohio. He faces a misdemeanor charge after recently going to the home of the mother of his son, in violation of a protection order. The woman had previously told police that their son had returned from Thomas's home with bruises.

Thomas had already been in hot water, after he tweeted during a march in support of immigration reform: "Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grr. Where's my gun?"

Thomas's son, and the son's mother, are Hispanic.

For the record Thomas has denied the allegations of domestic abuse:

In a phone interview, Thomas denied ever bruising his son, as was alleged in a domestic violence child protection order, and emphasized his anger was focused on illegal immigrants and not legal American citizens with mixed heritage, like his son.

Here's that BeeGees song. The "Spicks and Specks" line is about a minute or so in (just before the Barry Manilow modulation):

And here's the line:

Where are the girls I left all behind, the spicks and the specks of the girls on my mind?

If this is the intellectual level of tea-party organizers, then they've got bigger problems than taxes and "Obamacare."

Three strikes you're out

Click here to send one to a friend.

Fact-Checking The Trib

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today dutifully parrots a conservative talking point. And of course, it get the facts, well, wrong.

Take a look. This is from today's editorial page:

Yet another litmus test on Obamanomics is in and, as anyone with an ounce of sense predicted, the results are not good.

The U.S. Commerce Department says real personal income has dropped by 3.2 percent since President Change took office.

"It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, told The Washington Times.

Not exactly true. But let's start out with the expert they site. While it's true that Douglas Holtz-Eakin was director of the CBO (and that tag, obviously, is floated in an attempt to show he's non-partisan) he's now president of something called the American Action Forum. Partnered with the American Action Network and only formed recently, the purpose of the Forum and the Network are, according to the Wall Street Journal:

At least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort.

The organizational details of the group, expected to be called the American Action Network, are still being worked out, but it is expected to contain both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 component. In simpler terms, a 501(c)3 can advocate on policy matters while a 501(c)4 is an election arm.

Republican leaders expected to be affiliated with the group include former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, and Republican donor Fred Malek.

A House leadership aide told Washington Wire today that Rob Collins, a political operative and senior aide to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, is leaving Capitol Hill to be the executive director of the 501(c)4.

So he's hardly non-partisan.

Back to the Trib, though. The editorial quotes this Washington Times article. You'll note what the Trib omits. If you missed it I'll point it out after the quotation:

Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush's eight years in office.

What did the Trib omit? The fact that Obama inherited a worse recession than Dubya did AND that the numbers they're using exclude "government payouts such as Social Security." But what if we include those payouts? The Washington Times hides this at the end of the article:

Personal income with government "transfers" - which include such federal money as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and food stamps - has grown during Mr. Obama's time in office, up 1.2 percent from January 2009 to February 2010. During that period, government unemployment insurance benefits rose from $88 billion to $143 billion.

Given the horrendous recession Obama inherited from Dubya, it's not difficult to see why.

But of course such nuance is lost on Scaife's gang. Here's some artwork to clarify things.


See the downturn. Now see the up turn. See when it happened.

Now go read the Trib's editorial again. See how silly.

Joe Sestak breaks on through to the other side

Joe Sestak breaks on through to the other side
With the Pennsylvania primary election for U.S. Senate just a month away, the news is all good for challenger Rep. Joe Sestak (D) and all bad for incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R D).

First, Lil Ricky Santorum sucker punched Arlen by declaring that he had endorsed him over Toomey in 2004 because he made a deal with the then Republican Specter:

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up. I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee."

Specter, of course, denied this and Sestak pounced on the news:

"Rick Santorum’s stunning confirmation that Arlen Specter sold his influence as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a political endorsement should be extremely troubling to Pennsylvanians," the Democratic challenger said. "There are few people in this nation who have a greater impact on the lives of the American people than the men and women who serve lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.

"For Arlen Specter to take his marching orders from Rick Santorum and George W. Bush and pledge to support any nominee — no matter how partisan, no matter how unqualified — in order to win an election is a stunning betrayal of his duty as a public servant," he continued. "This is one of the most glaring of the many red flags in Specter’s record that he is willing to put his own political survival over his principles and his duty to the people."

Next, WAPO's The Fix listed the reasons why the conventional wisdom that Arlen has the race all tied up could be wrong. Theses include Sestak's sizable war chest, a campaign strategy that calls for a blitz in the last month, and the belief that Specter has peaked and Sestak has plenty of room to grow.

And just in, via PA2010, a new poll has Sestak catching up to Specter:

The Rasmussen survey of likely Democratic primary voters showed Sestak trailing Specter by a statistically insignificant two points, 44 percent to 42 percent. Ten percent of voters are still undecided, according to the poll.

At first glance, the survey appears to be something of a statistical outlier. A Rasmussen poll with a similar sample just one month ago found Sestak down 11 points, and little has transpired since then that would account for such a change. Neither candidate had aired TV ads when the poll was conducted. However, the telephone survey was taken on Monday, just as former Senator Rick Santorum’s accusation that he endorsed Specter in 2004 because Specter promised to back Bush administration judicial nominees was at its peak in the news cycle.

So is Arlen feeling the heat? Well, he did just start broadcasting a series of three TV ads which focus on blue collar workers. You can view them here.

Important Announcement

This Saturday, I'll be a part of John McIntire's POLITICAL PUNDIT SHOW.

You should go.

Who Knew?

Take a look at this:

Who knew Keith Olbermann was a Pirate fan??

Tea Party NY Gov Candidate's Racist & Hardcore Porn Emails

Meet Carl Paladino. He's the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York. You can see from his campaign website masthead above that he's "for the people," but if you read his emails you'll see he's not for all the people.

WNYmedia obtained dozens of emails either sent by Paladino or forwarded by him that contain outrageous racism, hardcore pornography and bestiality.

Here's a small sample:

(This is only a snapshot of the video as the original has beenbanned from YouTube. It shows African tribesmendancing (get it!). WNYmedia notes that it was popular atthe skinhead website Stormfront.org. You may recallthat cop-killer RichardPoplawski kept an account there.)


(This one needs no comment. He also sent an emailembedded with a video entitled “Miss France 2008 fucking”)
According to Talking Points Memo:

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael Caputo, would not comment on specific emails, but acknowledged to TPMmuckraker that Paladino had sent emails that were "off-color" and "politically incorrect," saying that few such emails represented the candidate's own opinion. Caputo accused Democrats of wanting to change the subject from substantive issues to "having sex with horses."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Paladino is anti choice and anti same-sex marriage. Also, according to TPM, Paladino considers himself "the only Republican in the race who agrees 100 percent with conservative values." (OK, you can stop laughing/weeping now.)

Additionally WNYmedia notes, he "even counted Governor Paterson’s admitted affair as evidence of Albany corruption – until the media found out about his own extramarital affair and child birthed out of wedlock."

Apropos of nothing, The Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement will hold its second annual Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th in Mellon Square Park and the Southwest PA T.E.A. Party will hold their "Let It Begin Here!" tea party on Saturday April 17th at the Greensburg-Jeannette Regional Airport. (Hey, guys! Never let it be said that I ignore your events.)

"Clean" Coal: Digging fresh graves and digging up old ones

Just watch:

Ask Aunt Maria!

While people writing to Ask Aunt Maria! generally don't sign their real names, some -- for whatever reason -- desire an even higher degree of anonymity and don't even want their letters published. Today's column is an all confidential one in light of their wishes, so if you don't see your pen name here, just move along.


Confidential to Puzzled POTUS: You just don't get it. Not only will these people never be your BFF, they aren't even frenemies. Anyone short of Robert Bork himself will be rejected by them as too left wing, so just pick a flaming liberal already.

Confidential to Big Papa: You're another one who just doesn't get it. There is no way to "fix" this. Resign already. Say you want to spend more time with your family have health issues or whatever, but go now. Your letter from 1985 saying how you need to "consider the good of the Universal Church" -- you might as well have been humming "Deutschland, Deutschland Vatican, Vatican über alles" while writing it. For the actual good of the Universal Church, just go.

Confidential to J in McCandless: If you want to know how to get the jury's sympathy, here's a start. Three words: Lose the Bumpit. Also, some of the jurors may be fellow Italians, so you may want to lay off the offensive Mafia references. Just sayin'.

Confidential to Golf Daddy: OK, I may be a little late in answering this one, but assuming you can read this from...somewhere: Yes, your kid is a total douchenozzle. Sorry.

The Trib and Taxes

From today's Editorial Page:

A tax system that's letting almost half of U.S. households pay no 2009 federal income taxes at all lacks fairness and simplicity and disengages too many Americans from matters of critical public importance.

The Washington-based Tax Policy Center says about 47 percent of households owe no such taxes because their incomes were too low for them to owe anything, or credits, deductions and exemptions eliminated their liability. Meanwhile, households with earnings in the top 10 percent will pay about 73 percent of federal income taxes

Here's what the TPC actually says:

About 45 percent of households will owe no federal income tax in 2010, according to our estimates. Half of them earn too little, while the other half -- mostly middle- and lower-income households -- will take advantage of tax credits such as the earned income credit, the child and child-care credits, the American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning credits, which help pay for college, and the saver's credit, which subsidizes retirement saving.

But even citizens who pay no income tax still pay other kinds of taxes. They pay Social Security and Medicare taxes when they work, sales taxes when they buy things and property taxes on their homes. Drivers pay gasoline taxes, and smokers and drinkers pay excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol. According to our research, more than 75 percent of us will pay at least some form of federal tax in 2010.

Those who pay no federal taxes are mostly the low-income elderly or very poor families with children. Even about half of those with annual incomes under $10,000 pay some federal tax, most often payroll taxes on wages.

Is the Trib editorial board actually looking to raise taxes on the working poor?

By the way the same Tax Policy Center says that it's a myth that Americans are over taxed.

Let's see the Trib push that one.

Jack Kelly Sunday

You don't really need to read Jack Kelly's column this week. The whole argument is here in this short clip:

But if there's any doubt in your mind, let it be expunged by Jack's first sentence:

President Barack Obama reminded us last week that before he drives us into bankruptcy, he might get us all killed.

And his evidence? For one, a selective misreading of the president's Nuclear Posture Review. Here's Jack:

The president listed five priorities in the NPR, noted James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. Defending the United States wasn't among them.

Here's what Carafano said:

The president lists five priorities in the NPR. Defending the U.S. isn’t one of them.

You’d think it would be job Number One. That’s why we invented nukes. Instead, the Review is largely a political document for trumpeting the president’s “road to zero,” a vision that will leave the U.S. with a smaller, less reliable, less credible nuclear force — making the world a more dangerous place.

And here's where I THINK Carafano got those "five priorities". It's on page iii, first page of the Executive Summary:

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines the Administration’s approach to promoting the President’s agenda for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons, while simultaneously advancing broader U.S. security interests. The NPR reflects the President’s national security priorities and the supporting defense strategy objectives identified in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.

After describing fundamental changes in the international security environment, the NPR report focuses on five key objectives of our nuclear weapons policies and posture:

1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and
5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

Objectives/key priorities. I say po-TAY-toe, you say po-TAH-toe. In any event it's hardly "not defending the USA."

Jack is hoping you don't check his work. Then Jack writes:

The key elements of the NPR are Mr. Obama's decision to eschew the use of nuclear weapons to retaliate against a biological or chemical attack against the United States, and the president's decision to develop no new nuclear weapons.

This, of course, is not exactly true. And Jack probably knows this. He has to have read the entire NPR, right? He couldn't possibly write something so cut and dried without knowing what he's talking about, right? Well this is what the NPR says (page viii):

To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. [emphasis added]

Does that mean there'd be NO retaliation for a chemical or biological attack?

No, it doesn't. This is a few paragraphs later.:

In making this strengthened assurance, the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response – and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable. Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and U.S. capacities to counter that threat. [emphasis added]

So there's still a response (a "devastating" one) to a biological or chemical attack, just not a nuclear one and only for those states not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So when Jack writes this:

"In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate," said Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer. "The new policy guarantees that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers."

We know he's just blowing smoke.

But look at what comes next:

What's really dangerous is the president's decision to build no new nuclear weapons. Nukes deteriorate with time. They need to be replaced if deterrence is to be maintained.

But go look up at "priority/key objective" 5:

Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.

So of course that means letting them "deteriorate with time."

How stupid does Jack think we are? We can go read the NPR and see how he's spinning.

Federation for American Immigration Reform

An astute reader clued me into this.

In a story about a illegal immigrant who has been accused of car-jacking, we find this:

There are an estimated 140,000 illegal aliens working in Pennsylvania, according to the Federation of American Immigration Reform.

It's a mystery why the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review would use the Federation for American Immigration Reform for background information. A mystery because the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared FAIR to be a hate group.

Even if it weren't, we'd STILL be pointing out the financial support the foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife have made to FAIR.

• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $300,000 to FAIR.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $50,000 to FAIR.
• In 2007, the Carthage Foundation gave $300,000 to FAIR.
• In 2006, the Carthage Foundation gave $300,000 to FAIR.

That's nearly $1,000,000 in just two years. In fact the mediatransparency project over at Mediamatters reports that the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations have given almost $3,000,000 to FAIR since 1986.

Don't you think that should have at least been mentioned in this article? I mean it is a warning about the need for immigration reform, isn't it?

The circle jerk continues.

But wait, there's more. The SPLC has this to say:

The organized anti-immigration "movement" is almost entirely the handiwork of one man, Michigan activist John H. Tanton.

And they list a number of other anti-immigration groups either funded or founded by Tanton. If we limit our search to just those groups founded by Tanton, we find that there's another group that's enjoyed the largess of Scaife's foundation money, the Center for Immigration Studies.

How much money has Scaife funneled to CIS? I am glad you asked.

• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $150,000 to the CIS.

That's another $450,000 to John Tanton by way of CIS. Mediamatters reports that the Carthage and Sarah Scaife foundations have given about $1.5 million to the CIS since 1991.

I guess you could say that Richard Mellon Scaife's rather well-connected to the nation's anti-immigration movement.

Long Live The 1st Amendment

H/T to Crooks and Liars:

Thanks to Shea Gunther over at Mother Nature Network for putting attention on this. It's always so nice to see the good guys win. The Westboro Baptist Church thrives on spreading a nice helping of hate around. They sent their minions to West Virginia to let the families of the 29 dead miners know their loved ones died because we're too tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Their website says there are too many Catholics in West Virginia, another reason for the protest.

Anyway, watch this video. Seriously, watch the whole thing. I especially love the part where the guy from West Virginia starts quoting Bible verses back at them and tells them to "get out". As it rolls on, it's clear the good people of West Virginia have no intention of letting the haters get even a little bit of traction in their state.

The Scripture quoted by the guy (it's a little shy of 1:50 in) could be from Peter's sermon (Acts 2:21):

And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Or it could be from Romans 10:13:

For whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Considering the message from the Westboro Baptist Church (i.e. that "God Hates Fags") and it's certainty over who's in Hell, I'd think the guy was quoting from the Book of Romans, considering its context:

But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what said it? The word is near you, even in your mouth, and in your heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. For the scripture said, Whoever believes on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call on him. For whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just an agnostic.

Sunday Pop - Trib Style

From today's Tribune-Review:

And from the Cold Facts File, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March. The annual ice melt began later than it has in 31 years, based on satellite data. And that can mean only one thing: More data for global warmers to fudge.

As we should all know by now, when it comes to climate science whatever the Tribune-Review says should be taken with a huge (do the kids these days still use the word "ginormous"?) grain of salt.

Look at what they wrote. Now look at what the National Snow and Ice Data Center actually says about the sea ice over the Arctic.

Some stuff the Trib left out.

Early in March, Arctic sea ice appeared to reach a maximum extent. However, after a short decline, the ice continued to grow. By the end of March, total extent approached 1979 to 2000 average levels for this time of year. The late-season growth was driven mainly by cold weather and winds from the north over the Bering and Barents Seas. Meanwhile, temperatures over the central Arctic Ocean remained above normal and the winter ice cover remained young and thin compared to earlier years. [emphasis added]

And:

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March, but 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in March 2006.

Ice extent was above normal in the Bering Sea and Baltic Sea, but remained below normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Baffin Bay, and the Canadian Maritime Provinces seaboard. Extent in other regions was near average.

Our friends at the Trib seemed to have missed what "ice extent" is. Here's the definition:

Sea ice extent is a measurement of the area of ocean where there is at least some sea ice. Usually, scientists define a threshold of minimum concentration to mark where the ice ends; the most common cutoff is at 15 percent. Scientists use the 15 percent cutoff because it provides the most consistent agreement between satellite and ground observations.

It's a number describing the total area where there's some sea ice. So if the whole arctic kept to the average and one area grew, then the ice extent grows - it's that above normal part that throws off the average.

So what was the average "ice extent" like? Luckily there's art:

See the blue line? That's the average. It's declining, isn't it?

Interesting that none of this information made its way onto the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

These guys are something, huh?

The Trib/AEI/And Incomplete Homework

From today's Tribune-Review:

The overly enthusiastic presumption about government-funded "green jobs" is that they'll spur new industries that will invigorate an idle U.S. economy. Nothing can be further from the truth.

These shibboleths and more are exposed in a U.S. News & World Report (usnews.com) analysis by environmental scientist Kenneth P. Green, an American Enterprise Institute scholar. Point by point Mr. Green reveals some of the more common fallacies.

Wait, wait. The American Enterprise Institute? You know the drill by now, my friends.

• In 2008, the Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $475,000 to the American Enterprise Institute.
• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $425,000 to the American Enterprise Institute.
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $575,000 to the American Enterprise Institute.

That's about $1.5 million dollars in three years, right?

Mediamatters reports that the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations gave a total of about $7.3 million to the AEI over about 20 years. (Circle jerk, circle jerk, circle jerk....)

But what about what Green says?

Well you can't believe everything you read on the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, can you? Here's more from the Trib:

Moreover, by using tax dollars and government incentives to undercut the competition, green jobs kill conventional energy jobs. In Spain's experience, every renewable-energy job that was created eliminated, on average, 2.2 traditional jobs, according to a study by Spain's King Juan Carlos University.

And Green from his USNews Opinion piece:

Now to the empirical evidence. When talking about our bold green energy future, President Obama held up Spain as an example. Spain invested heavily in wind power and other renewable energy. Alas, after studying the Spanish experience, Prof. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and colleagues at Spain's Universidad Rey Juan Carlos found that if America followed Spain's example, for every renewable energy job that the United States managed to create, it should expect a loss, on average, of at least 2.2 traditional jobs.

Except it's not so simple. According to this paper from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL):

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

Specifically:

In summary, the analysis performed in this recent study is not a jobs impact estimate and, therefore, provides little insight into job creation or job loss from Spanish RE policy. Additionally, this analysis has oversimplifications and assumptions that lead to questions regarding its quantitative results. Finally, the authors fail to justify their implication that because of the jobs comparison, subsidies for renewables are not worthwhile. This ignores an array of benefits besides employment creation that flow from government investment in renewable energy technologies.

But wait. I can hear the skeptics out there screaming: But they get their funding from the guv'ment! Funding money taints everything!!.

But get this from a blog at the Wall Street Journal:

And just where did that study come from? Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He’s also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think thank than in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil.

As I said, you can't always believe what you read on the pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Craig Smith Does It Again.

Last February, I caught Craig Smith tribbing for Richard Mellon Scaife - he interviewed Dick Armey, president of Freedomworks, for the Tribune-Review without declaring that the Trib's owner, Richard Mellon Scaife, donated millions of dollars to Freedomworks.

I caught him again. In today's Trib, he interviews Michelle Bernard, CEO of the Independent Women's Forum - without disclosing the millions of dollars in Scaife money that's flowed to the IWF from the various Scaife-controlled foundations. To wit:

• In 2007, the Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $100,000 to the IWF
• In 2006, the Sarah Scaife Foundation granted $100,000 to the IWF
• In 2008, the Carthage Foundation granted $50,000 to the IWF

That's a cool quarter mill in just three years. Mediamatters reports that two Scaife controlled foundations (Sarah Scaife and Carthage) have given $2.1 million to the IWF in the last 15 years or so.

No mention of that by Craig Smith in Scaife's paper, the Tribune-Review.

The circle jerk continues.

WTF? Orie Sib Works For...PA AG Corbett?

The Ories: Jane, Judith, Jack, Joan & Janine, but no Jerry...
We just assumed that all the Orie siblings turned up earlier this week to show their support for PA state Sen. Jane Orie (R) and Janine Orie who face criminal charges stemming from allegedly campaigning for their sister, Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, on the public's dime.

Turns out there's at least one more Orie sibling: Jerome A. Orie. He was a no show at the above presser -- guess he couldn't get off work.

Speaking of which, you'll never guess where Jerry works (OK, you will if you read the headline).

He's a deputy attorney at the Attorney General's Insurance Fraud Section.

Yeah, that would be Tom Corbett's office.

The same Tom Corbett who is a Republican prosecuting Democrats for the same types of charges that the Orie sisters are facing -- but not facing from PA AG Tom Corbett -- even though complaints were brought to him.

As Michael Morrill from Keystone Progress notes:

Why is no one reporting on the fact that Jerry Orie, the brother of Republican State Senator Jane Orie and Republican Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, works for Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett?

[snip]

Corbett is being accused of selective prosecution for not investigating Jane Orie's use of her Senate staff for her sister's 2009 campaign for Supreme Court. Corbett is running for governor this year, largely on the basis of his record in prosecuting mostly Democrats for using their staffs for political campaigns.

[snip]

We're not suggesting that there's a connection, but I'm surprised that this Orie relationship to Corbett hasn't been reported in any stories related to this issue. At least none that we've seen.

I certainly don't remember hearing about this connection which is interesting to say the least.

However, it appears that at least one news source has mentioned it: The Pennsylvania Independent. Eric Boehm reported yesterday:

Prior to her elected career, Sen. Orie worked as an assistant district attorney in Allegheny County and as a deputy state attorney general. Sen. Orie's siblings include Justice Orie-Melvin, Jack Orie, a former assistant DA in Allegheny County, and Jerry Orie, a deputy attorney general in the Insurance Fraud Section.

Neither Sen. Orie's personal history, nor the fact that her brother is employed by the Office of the Attorney General had any bearing on the office's decision not to handle the investigation, said Kevin Harley, a spokesman for the Attorney General's office.

By the time the Attorney General's office became aware of the investigation, the Allegheny County DA was fully involved, and despite having concurrent jurisdiction in the case, it would be unusual for the Attorney General to get involved, said Mr. Harley.

Alrighty then!

We certainly know that the Office of the Attorney General would never do anything partisan or less than transparent. And, it's not like any other Orie could be facing any other charges down the line.

(Looks like we need to add someone to our blogroll.)

More On Almire: An Update on Jack Shea

Remember this?

Irate at Rep. Jason Altmire’s vote against the health care legislation, Jack Shea, the president of the Allegheny County Labor Council, said he is considering a challenge the McCandless Democrat in either the primary or general elections.

Well that's not going to be the case. From Politico.com:

Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire is the latest Democrat to dodge a challenge from the left after casting a vote against health care reform legislation last month.

Labor leader Jack Shea, who had been publicly mulling a third-party or write-in campaign against Altmire, told the website pa2010.com that he's decided not to challenge the second-term congressman.

“I’ve tried to be a little bit loose on this race to see what developed, but I am not planning to make a serious push,” Shea told the publication. “One thing is for certain, we can’t let [Republican Mary Beth] Buchanan win the seat. We need a candidate who will be truthful and support the middle class.”

Pennsylvania's filing deadline had already passed, and it would have been difficult for Shea to challenge Altmire as a write-in primary candidate. But he could have done serious damage to the congressman's reelection chances by siphoning votes from Democrats as Altmire competes against Buchanan, a former U.S. attorney.

From pa2010.com:

Shea said he had been in contact with a host of potential supporters since rumors of a campaign surfaced weeks ago—many expressing anger with Altmire’s vote against health care reform and Republican candidate Mary Beth Buchanan’s stance on the issue.

Despite the encouragement, Shea saw the task of getting on the ballot as an independent or launching a successful write-in campaign as too steep a hill to climb.

“I was flattered that so many hard-working people would support me, but I have too many obligations between now and November to mount an effective campaign,” Shea said. “The last thing we need is to do is build another mountain for labor to climb, and that’s exactly what my campaign would be.”

Updated.

RIP Malcolm McLaren

Malcolm McLaren
January 22, 1946 – April 8, 2010

God, I feel old.

16,500 IRS Agents?

This argument actually bubbled up in a real-life conversation I had a few days ago. I was told that one of the problems with the new Healthcare legislation is that it would require 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce.

Newt Gingrich repeated this on Fox (of course) "News" recently. He said on the Hannity Show:

One of the things in the health bill is 16,000 additional IRS agents. Now I think the average American doesn't think we need 16,000 health police -- they don't think we need a single health police. And it's interesting that that health bill has more IRS agents than it has doctors or nurses or people who actually do health in the bill.

I think, Republicans this fall, if they were to run as one of their planks, that they will never fund the 16,000 IRS agents, and they will block implementation of the $430 billion in new taxes.

And then put it straight to the country -- Do you want 16,000 new IRS agents? Vote Democrat. Do you not want 16,000? Vote Republican.

My guess is that, in fact, could be one of the five or six issues that could set the stage for a Republican majority.

Luckily Factcheck.org has done an analysis and found that this is a lie. Take a look:

This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.

The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do. [emphasis added]

And that, as they say, is how it's done.

It's the next big GOP lie. Be on the lookout for it.

It's already oozed its way onto the pages of Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review:

OK, put aside your dictionaries. The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory "premiums."

Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?

No, it sounds like a lie.

Bravo Debuts "The Real Political Dynasties of Southwestern PA"

PA Sen. Jane Orie reacts to indictments on
"The Real Political Dynasties of Southwestern PA."
Bravo TV announced their summer lineup today. Of particular interest to Pittsburghers will be their new reality show: "The Real Political Dynasties of Southwestern PA."

According to their press release, they guarantee that the show will feature more personal animus; explosive arguments; and petty, longstanding grudges than the finale of "The Real Housewives of New Jersey" and bigger hair bumps than MTV's "Jersey Shore."

The show will focus on the Orie and Zappala families, but Bravo says that if it's a success, there could be spin-offs for the Ravenstahls, the Wagners, the Costas, well, you get the picture.

Original episodes of "The Real Political Dynasties of Southwestern PA" will first air on Bravo and then will re-air on the truTV network (formally Court TV) one week later.

It's the Ories Vs. the Zappalas on Bravo's new show:


Ories: Jane, Judith, Jack, Joan (Melvin) and Janine


Zappalas: Stephen, Jr., Michele (Peck) and Stephen, Sr.

Meet the Ories: Jane, Janine, Joan & Jack!

PA Sen. Jane Orie

Jane Orie: PA state Sen. Republican Whip (R-McCandless) charged today with 10 criminal charges including diversion of services, restricted activities, tampering with evidence and conspiracy.

Janine Orie: An aide to state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin. Janine was charged with two criminal charges today which include theft and diversion of services.

Joan Orie Melvin: Recently elected PA Supreme Court Justice who benefited from the shenanigans of her sisters Jane and Janine (but who hasn't been charged with anything).

Jack Orie: A Pittsburgh attorney and brother of Jane and Janine and Joan who represented Jane and Janine today.

__________________________________________________

Sources: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Sloppy Homework At The Trib. Again.

And this is how the echochamber works.

From today's editorial page at the Tribune-Review:

While U.S. media all but ignore the growing scandal over manipulated climate data to bolster the "science" of man-made global warming, the European press has been all over the story, notes Rick Moran of the American Thinker. What's revealed is "a climate science community in near chaos and dispirited over the fact that so much data was fabricated or deliberately ignored," Mr. Moran says, noting a Spiegel Online report. True scientists tend to pay attention to such details.

First off, "the growing scandal"? Just saying it doesn't make it true, guys. The AP debunked the "scandal" months ago.

Here's Moran's blog post at The American Thinker. When you read that and the Speigel article Moran sites, you'll see what the Trib's done. It's a selective discussion of a selective discussion.

For example: while Moran says the "climate science community is in near chaos" over the fact that much data was manipulated (even though it wasn't), page two of the Spiegel article Moran sites has this:

Despite the controversy, most climatologists agree that in the end the general view of climate change will not have changed significantly. Almost all share the basic conviction that we are headed for warmer times.

And by page 7 we see this:

Until now, no one knew exactly which clouds benefit from a greenhouse climate. But the answer to this question determines whether average global temperatures will end up being one degree higher or lower than predicted by today's models, a factor which creates significant uncertainty. "The jury is still out on which direction the pendulum will take," says Stevens.

Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.

But wait. If it's all a hoax (as Scaife's Braintrust continually propagandizes) then what's there to stop? Now go back and read The Trib's take. Notice anything missing? Yea. Lots.

Moran selectively quoted The Spiegel article and the Trib selectively quoted Moran.

That's how the echochamber works, my friends.

Shouldn't Mark Critz pull this ad?

...In light of recent events.

I saw it running today during WTAE's 6:00 PM newscast and Sue Kerr saw it on KDKA News around 6:15 PM.


.

The Trib's Tea Party Connection

We should remember the adage "follow the money" whenever we read things like this at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Corbett never imagined a year ago that he'd be campaigning at tea party rallies.

But there he was Saturday afternoon on the North Shore courting voters -- as were congressional hopefuls Mary Beth Buchanan and Melissa Haluszczak -- as the Pennsylvania Tea Party marked its first anniversary with an open-air rally at Allegheny Landing replete with a sprinkling of coiled-snake Gadsden flags and protest pickets.

Many predicted the loosely organized, small government grassroots movement that began building in early 2009 would fade quickly.

A year later, its rallies are becoming a must for serious Republican candidates. Saturday's rally, the first of three this month in the Pittsburgh area, attracted several hundred tea party supporters as well as the candidates and their representatives.

Completely absent in the reporting is the money trail from Richard Mellon Scaife (owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review) to the tea party movement.

By way of Dick Armey and Freedomworks.

• In 2008, the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $70,000 to Freedomworks
• In 2007, the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $200,000 to Freedomworks
• In 2006, the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation gave $200,000 to Freedomworks
  

And that's just in the last 3 years.

When the owner of a paper funds an organization that's (at the very least) coordinating a political movement and then that paper reports on that movement without reporting on the connection, that's what's known as a conflict of interest my friends.

But it's all OK because we "know" that George Soros gave money to Moveon.org (except he didn't).

Massey Energy: Hundreds of Safety Violations; Thousands of Environmental Violations

Even their logo looks hellish.
Most of you have already heard that a devastating blast at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia has killed 25 workers with 4 workers still missing.

It's the worst U.S. mining disaster since 1984.

The mine is owned by Massey Energy and is run by its subsidiary Performance Coal Company which according to an AP article in the Post-Gazette has "a history of violations for not properly ventilating highly combustible methane gas."

That article further states:

In the past year, federal inspectors fined the company more than $382,000 for repeated serious violations involving its ventilation plan and equipment at Upper Big Branch. The violations also cover failing to follow the plan, allowing combustible coal dust to pile up, and having improper firefighting equipment.

The New York Times has more:

Federal records indicate that the Upper Big Branch mine has recorded an injury rate worse than the national average for similar operations for at least six of the past 10 years. The records also show that the mine had 458 violations in 2009, with a total of $897,325 in safety penalties assessed against it last year. It has paid $168,393 in safety penalties.

“Massey’s commitment to safety has long been questioned in the coalfields,” said Tony Oppegard, a lawyer and mine safety advocate from Kentucky.

Those concerns, he said, were heightened in 2006 when an internal memo written by Mr. Blankenship became public. In the memo, Mr. Blankenship instructed the company’s underground mine superintendents to place coal production first.

“This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the coal pays the bills,” he wrote.

With that kind of attitude on worker safety, it shouldn't be at all surprising that Massey and company CEO Don Blankenship are equally cavalier with the public's safety.

According to Wikipedia:

In early 2008, the company agreed to a $20 million settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) to resolve thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for routinely polluting waterways in Kentucky and West Virginia with coal slurry and wastewater. Although this was the largest Clean Water Act settlement, the violations were estimated to have fines on the order of $2.4 billion. Over 700 miles of rivers and streams in the coalfields have been buried by the waste rock left over from mountaintop removal, a method of strip mining coal which requires the blowing up of mountain tops, removing from 500 to 800 feet (240 m) of mountaintop in the process. This method of coal mining has created some of the worst environmental disasters in the Mississippi area in regards to the poisoning of waterways, the flooding of local communities, and the destruction of the biodiversity of the Appalachian Mountains in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

In October 2000, a Massey Energy subsidiary in Martin County, Kentucky accidentally released 306 million gallons of coal slurry waste from an impoundment into two mountain streams, Coldwater Creek and Wolf Creek (see photo right). The Martin County sludge spill was called the worst ever environmental disaster in the southeastern United States by the EPA. The spill smothered all aquatic life in the streams and left residents with contaminated drinking water. Cleanup costs for the spill were approximately $50 million.

Blankenship has also personally made it known that business interests should come before any environmental considerations (via SourceWatch):

At a November 2008 meeting of the Tug Valley Mining Institute in West Virginia, Don Blankenship described environmental groups, along with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, as "Totally wrong. Nonsense. Absolutely crazy." He referred to reporters at the Charleston Gazette, a paper that has published numerous articles about the environmental effects of coal, as "communists" and "atheists." He also argued that the international scope of greenhouse gas emissions makes it futile to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S., saying, "Its nonsensical, its idiotic... If Pelosi thinks that decreasing CO2 in this country is going to save the polar bears, she’s crazy. If CO2 emissions are going to kill the polar bears, it’s going to happen. What we do here [in the US] is not going to [do] it." Blankenship also declared that business interests should come before environmental issues, and he questioned the ability of the general public to understand anything beyond simple environmental concepts.

And, if all that wasn't bad enough, Blankenship also waged "a multi-million dollar advertising campaign...to elect a West Virginia Supreme Court judge to preside over cases his company had before the court may push the U.S. Supreme Court to act."

Via ABC News:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Tuesday called the case one of the most "extreme" of its kind that the high court has ever considered. The situation fit Justice Potter Stuart's infamous definition of obscenity, Stevens said, "I know it when I see it."

Here's Coal Boss Don Blankenship roughing up an ABC reporter in 2008:



Our condolences to the families of the workers killed in the blast, as well as all those harmed by Massey.
.

The Trib And The Brits - Climate "Whitewash"

As usual, the Editorial Board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review pouts a childish pout whenever things (like the facts) don't agree with their Weltanschauung.

Usually it's about climate science and today it is no different:

The British investigation into charges that scientists at a leading climate-research university manipulated data is about as convincing as the "science" of global warming.

After only one day of hearings Parliament's Science and Technology Committee could find no smoking gun in the "Climategate" e-mail scandal that engulfs the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and chief climate crier Dr. Phil Jones.

E-mails concerning a "trick" scientists used to "hide the (temperature) decline" got the same cursory treatment.

And from an inquiry that was only announced in January, the committee concludes that the CRU climate data square with those of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climatic Data Center, the world's largest archive of climate information.

Of course they found no "smoking gun" because there was none to be found. But such inconvenient truths are lost on Scaife's braintrust. The report itself explains a bit of science (pity the lesson was not absorbed by Dickie's crew) and in doing so shows why the whole "tainted email/tainted science" argument is, well, horse hockey:

Climate science, like any other science, uses the scientific method to make its assessments of past and present climate and predictions about the future climate. The key characteristics of the scientific method can be described as: characterisations, hypotheses, predictions, and experiments.

• Characterisations: consideration of a problem, and examination of whether or not an explanation exists for it.

• Hypotheses: if no such explanation exists, a new explanation is stated.

• Predictions: what consequences follow from a new explanation?

• Experiments: is the outcome consistent with the predicted consequences?

Each of these is subject to peer review prior to the formal sharing of knowledge through publication. Through peer review scientists allow their views and methods to be critically appraised expertly and externally.

• Replication and verification

To have the results and conclusions survive criticism or scepticism and be part of the accepted canon of scientific knowledge, most experiments will have to be demonstrably replicable (by the same group) to pass peer review and will often need to be verified by other independent researchers taking similar approaches.

That last part is the key. Turns out that there are two other main "datasets" being worked on; NOAA and NASA. While the raw data the three use may overlap, their numbers are all "crunched" differently. And all subject to independent peer review.

Lo and behold they all come to the same conclusion. The planet is warming.

Either that or the whole British Parliament is now among the climate co-conspirators. A conspiracy only the wingnut nation sees.

I bore easily...

Thus the new design for the blog.

Hope you don't hate it.
.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal Having Far Reaching Effects Including Here in Pittsburgh

Dan Onorato, Mike Doyle and Luke Ravenstahlat today's early morning press conference.
In a move which political insiders found "stunning" a joint press conference was held today in Pittsburgh by three notably Catholic elected officials: US Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

The three men issued a press release stating that, "We realize that we have no right to impose our particular religious views on the citizenry of Southwestern Pennsylvania."

It went on to add, "We're all Democrats and it's time that we lived up to our Party's platform."

At the presser, Onorato said, "I told the good folks at the Steel-City Stonewall Democrats endorsement vote just this Sunday that I was against same-sex marriage, but with each new revelation in the Church abuse scandal I came to the realization that maybe my Church didn't really have the moral authority to tell others how to live their lives. If elected to be your Governor, I will work for real equality not just some sham unfunded commission."

Mayor Ravenstahl, whose voice frequently chocked with emotion and who at times was blinking back tears, blurted out, "I've been a real douche." He went on, "That vote I made against the Bubble Zone when I was on City Council which I never explained, yeah, that was totally an anti choice vote. Myself and my colleagues here have no right to try to impose the views of our Church or ourselves on the women of our area.

Growing increasingly more philosophical during his comments, Ravenstahl added, "What are we talking about here anyway? I can't even keep my own marriage together and yet I say the gays shouldn't even be allowed to try? It's all about the love, right?"

Doyle, the last to speak, said he'd been conflicted for some time. "Yeah, I voted for the Stupak Amendment, but even then I was still trying to bring the two sides together. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I know I can't impose my own beliefs on others. And, I certainly can't hide behind my faith -- especially not now. I want to say though that there are many, many good people in the laity, but I've had a real change of heart. I'm gonna go one step further and sponsor a repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Abortion is legal in this country and there's no good reason why we should punish poor women. That would be real health care reform."

The three took questions after making their statements and when asked about his status as a resident of the infamous "C Street House" run by the shadowy group called "The Family," Doyle noted that he had moved out over a year ago. "What was I thinking living there? Talk about religious hypocrites and a lack of moral authority! They're almost on par with the leadership in the Catholic Church."

As the conference ended, the press was ushered out with a broadcast of David Bowie's "Changes."


.

Moral Equivalence? Not So Much

There seems to be a practice among the mainstream media - showing a "lack of bias" by pointing out an equivalence sins on both sides of the political aisle - even if such an equivalence does not exist.

Case in point: from Crooks and Liars. While denouncing all hate-speech (which is a good thing) Bill O'Reilly added:

The press is obviously pumping up inappropriate things that happen on the right and pretty much ignoring hateful things on the left. Bernie Goldberg and I established that on Monday.

To which C&L commented:

Tell you what, Bill and Laura. Come and talk to us again about how nasty and wrong hateful talk from the left is when:

• A liberal walks into a church and opens fire on the congregation because they're all a bunch of conservatives and he wants to kill as many right-wingers as he can.
• A liberal walks into another church and shoots a doctor in the head.
• A liberal shoots three police officers who come to his door because he fears the president is going to take his guns away.
• A liberal walks into the Holocaust Museum and shoots a guard because he hates Jews and believes it's time to start a race war.
• A liberal walks into the Pentagon and opens fire because he believes the government is plotting against its citizens.
• A pack of gun-loving liberals forms a plot to kill law-enforcement officers and start a revolution.

Our own Reg Henry treads upon similar ground today:

On the circle of political opinion, the far left and the far right sit uncomfortably next to each other and both are certifiably nuts. But the reality is that the far left has been a small sliver for the past 30 years while the far right is such a large cohort that it now represents mainstream opinion in the Republican Party. Really.

Really.