Just Plain Politics!

Banned Books Week September 25-October 2, 2010

wordcreatorushtwf — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:11:37 GMT

Banned Books Week celebrates the freedom to read, the freedom to choose and the freedom to express one's opinion, even if it is unorthodox.

Sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA) since 1982, it has become an annual event reminding Americans not to take this democratic freedom for granted. Held annually during the last week of September, the events highlight:

Free and open access to information
Attention to the harms of censorship
Spotlights actual or attempts to ban books

Read more

Remember this when you vote next November

Mott the Hoople — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:32:54 GMT

Both parties are guilty of sending our Industrial base over seas in a rush to the bottom to exploit cheap labor. Republicans more so then Democrats but both are guilty. Politicians need to hear it loud and clear that those politicians who send our jobs over seas will soon be unemployed. This is the main reason I'm voting against Rob Portman and John Kasich in Ohio's elections because they have been actively involved in selling America's workers out, though don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Dems to blame to and their not getting my vote either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...tsourcingtrend

The IPCC Review: When Science-Deniers End Up with Egg on their Face, Part 9,452

Cypress — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:25:32 GMT

Professors Bravo, Dixie, Tom: you and your merry band of Climate Gaters have provided the Rupert Murdoch ~~interpretation~~ spin on the IPCC report:

Quote:

From recent jpp.com posts:

Tom Prendergast/Rupert Murdoch: “IPCC Savaged!!!”

Bravo: “Climate Hoax!! IPCC found badly wanting!!”

Those are interesting choices of words: “savaged”, “badly wanting”, “climate hoax!”

Based on the crack reporting of your Rupert Murdoch Tabloids, you clearly suggest the IAC report debunked, annihilated, undermined, or otherwise “slammed” the IPCC, no? That the science is either in serious doubt, or as Bravo says a complete “hoax”.

Now, I think we should actually ask the Chairman of the very IAC Committee you are relying on to make your Rupert Murdoch-esque claims, what his opinion is….

Quote:

September 2nd Interview with Dr. Shapiro, Chairman of the IAC Panel which Reviewed the IPCC

-Question: “If your panel concluded generally that the IPCC’s procedure is reasonable, even if it could use improvement, doesn’t that implicitly suggest that the science is sound?”

-IAC Chairman Shapiro: “Yes, I think that’s fair. It suggests that it was convincing enough — this organization is not a fraud, this organization wasn’t perpetuating some sort of criminal act on us all (Note: refer to Bravo’s claims of “climate fraud!!”, as above) — in fact, it’s extraordinary the number of scientists who participated….”

-Question: “Has the press done a good job of reporting accurately on your report?”

-IAC Chairman Shapiro: “Overall I’d say yes, it is a pretty fair treatment, especially if you overlook the headlines and read the actual articles. There are some publications that are pursuing their own objectives and distorting the message. We made some comments to the effect that [the IPCC] ought to be more careful in using non-peer-reviewed literature, and one headline came out in Europe saying we said: “the data is terrible.” Of course, we said nothing of the kind. But I think overall what I’ve seen so far has been reasonable.”

http://www.climatecentral.org/breaki..._despite_flaws

There you have it, hombres.

The crack reporting of the Rupert Murdoch press, as reproduced by the JPP.com anti-science contingent, got it flat-out wrong. . All sane and reasonable people can agree that the editorial choices of words by Rupert Murdoch, Bravo, and TomPrendergast, like “savaged” and “climate hoax” are complete misrepresentations – actually fabrications – that are unsupported by the IAC report and it’s Chairman

Unsurprisingly, Dr. Shapiro is agreeing with exactly what I said routinely, from the outset: the IPCC science is sound, and they are simply recommending administrative policies and procedures, to make the IPCC even better.

Will wonders never cease? My take on the IAC report was essentially completely correct. And the Rupert Murdoch/JPP.com anti-science contingent totally bungled it. Again.

Didn’t I tell you denialist dudes days ago, that you should put the cork back in the champagne bottle before this blew up in your faces, like climate gate did? Hey man, I’m just looking out for y’all’s best interests. I was trying to save you from complete embarrassment again.

Now, if you want confirmation that the IPCC scientific synthesis is sound, don’t just take Dr. Shapiro’s or my word for it.

The IPCC scientific synthesis has been reviewed multiple times this year by other prestigious scientific bodies. And in every single case, those organizations found the IPCC scientific synthesis to, overall, be sound and authoritative.

Quote:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of IPCC and “Climate Gate” Emails, July 29, 2010

”EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger”.

Claim: (Anti-climate science) Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.

EPA Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson’s decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...f!OpenDocument

************************************************** *************************

Dutch Government’s assessment of IPCC:

“Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded and none were found to contain any significant errors.”

“Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change. There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change in the future pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at higher global average temperatures.”

“Realistically speaking, a thousand-page assessment by hundreds of authors involving thousands of reviewers conducted within a limited timeframe could hardly be expected to be free of errors. Therefore, it is to be expected that some inaccuracies, insufficiently justified statements or other irregularities, escape even the most thorough drafting and review procedures.”

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/20...07-report.html

http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

Quote:

In Summary

(1) The Chairman of the IAC panel to review the IPCC, agrees that the science is “sound”.

(2) The Chair of the IAC panel to review the IPCC concurs with exactly what I’ve said from the outset: the recommendations are for administrative and procedural measure to make the IPCC even better.

(3) Not only does the Chairman of the IAC panel concur that the science is “sound”, but multiple independent reviews of the IPCC assessment from prestigious scientific organizations this year concluded that the IPCC assessments, overall, are well founded and sound.

(4) The Rupert Murdoch tabloid reporting on the IAC panel completely – and probably intentionally – mischaracterized the IAC report.

It is also worth noting that denialists – when they were prematurely popping champagne corks - cited the InterAcademy Council (IAC) as a reputable and unimpeachable source of scientific information.

I agree. The IAC is an institution made up of the world’s National Science Academies.

Not only did the Chairman of the IAC ipcc review panel say that the science of climate change is sound, but the IAC and the world’s National Science Academies have routinely issued collective statements saying that human-caused climate change is a major concern, and that human GHG emissions must be reduced.

Good to see the denialists finally and belatedly recognize IAC as an unimpeachable and reputable source of climate science information.

Quote:

Future Predictions:

After yet another “Climate Gate”-style bungle, and after yet more egg ended up on the face of our merry band of science denialists, there are three possible outcomes in the near future:

1) Climate-denialists back track and now claim that the IAC is in league with, and is providing cover for, a global cabal of lying climate scientists.
2) Climate-denialists will continue to pathetically cling to their Rupert Murdoch tabloid headlines that this IAC report “savaged” the IPCC, in spite of the clear and unequivocal statements of the IAC debunking those Rupert Murdoch tabloid claims.
3) Climate-denialists will engage in sober introspection, admit they were wrong on the IAC report, and on Climate Gate.

My analysis?

The statistical odds of the first two predictions happening is close to 100%

The odds for the third prediction to come true is about zero percent.

Well, that concludes another hilarious melt down in climate science denial. I tried to warn you about premature champagne cork popping; consider it a public service my part…..I hate to see you dudes constantly owned, or manipulated or mislead by your Rupert Murdoch tabloids. In spite of the, frankly hilarious, comedy value of it all. Hasta, senoritas!

Israel's destruction

bravo — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:29:12 GMT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100905...israelpolitics

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ruled out an attack on the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme, during a visit to Qatar on Sunday, because any such action would result in Israel's destruction.

"Any act against Iran will lead to the eradication of the Zionist entity," he told a joint news conference in Doha with Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, after their talks.

When is our useless leader gonna have a heart to heart talk with "Imanutjob" ....leader of Iran....
He can convince the lefty pinheads he is the messiah, he should be able to turn Imanutjob into a docile Christian..:good4u:

Dems will keep the House and Senate

Mott the Hoople — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:38:54 GMT

Right now the talking heads are certain that Republicans will sweep the House and possibly even the Senate. I don't think that's going to happen and here's why.

For the Senate it's easy to predict why it won't happen. There are 16 senate seats up for election this cycle. 13 of those are held by Democrats, mostly in traditionally democratic States. 3 of those are is states which tend Republican. Ohio, for example, tends slightly Republican but they tend to be establishment Republicans and not Tea Party wackos or Southern wingnuts. In Ohio you have Rob Portman of Cincinnati, vs Lee Fisher of Cleveland. Portman, at present has a lead in the polls but the campaign season is just starting and he has some serious disadvantages, That is, he was President Bush's lead Trade Negotiator that negotiated the Chinese Trade agreement. Prior to that he was President Bush's Budget Director, the former doesn't play well in Ohio and the later....well that doesn't play well anywhere. So Portman is wide open to serious political attacks, his big advantage though is he has more money then Fisher. Kentucky is another example, it leans Republican and the Republican candidate has a lead in the polls but he's also an idiot who's going to get beat to death with some of the stupid things he's said. You have a similiar situation in Nevada where Angle imploded with idiotic comments. In short, of the 16 Senate seats up for grabs Repubs will have to pick up 13 of them to take control of the Senate. Not likely to happen.

The house has greater potential for Republicans as Democrats have taken some big hits in popularity in the last two years but they have some significant problems that will impede their obtaining the 39 additional seats they need.

#1. Gerrymandered districts make those kinds of pick ups difficult in one election cycle. It took two election cycles for Dems to do it.
#2. Dems has a substantial advantage in money to spend in key battles.
#3. Repubs have some serious organizational problems. They are having a serious internal dissent with RNC Chair Michael Steele and this has prevented Repubs from getting out a consistent message.
#4. Repubs are still widely blamed by the public for getting us into the economic mess that Dems have made themselves unpopular for in their attempts to get us out of. The voting public hasn't forgotten this.
#5. Nothing new is coming out of the Republican party. They keep regurgitating the same tired old "Lets cut taxes for the rich" mantra and unpopular Bush era policies.
#6. This lack of new ideas gives Dems to opportunity to label Repubs as "The Party of No" and so far this has been quite affective for Dems as they are defining the Repubs message for them a critical strategic blunder for Repubs. The most feared question Repubs have right now is "What will you do if you get in office?"
#7. This inability by Repubs to prove that they are prepared and have the ability to govern is a serious short coming and considering their abysmal recent history, will give many voters pause to think before voting Republican.
#8. The Tea Party is a lead anchor around the Republican parties neck. The Republican party has been working hard to regain their image as "establishment Republicans" only to have it sabotaged by Tea Party elements. Dems will have a hay day painting the Tea Party element as extremist and the stupid shit some of these tea baggers, like Paul and Angle, have been saying won't help.

Dems are fighting a wave of resentment for their failure to quickly dig us out of the hole that Repubs put us into and fighting such an ideological wave can sweep over some individual candidates who will literally get lost in the tide when it comes to individual campaigns but Republican party problems are to substantial to overcome in one election cycle. The will make significant gains in both houses but they will not win either.

Product of Selfishness led to a Republican Crisis.

DeMartMan — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:53:02 GMT

The crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is the direct result of Republicans refusing to regulate big business. We all live with regulations, so why should big corporations be exempt? Why does the Republican Party care only for the rich? What ever happen to the Selfless attitude of "Ask not what the Country can do for you, ask what you can do for the Country?"

YouTube- The Product of Selfishness a Republican Crisis.

Impeachment Do Nothing Party

DeMartMan — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:31:58 GMT

For years Republicans have been blocking everything that would be make America better. They have become know as the Party of No, of the filibuster, the do nothing Party, but the one hope has been if they got back into power that they would roll up their sleeves and go back to work. After all millions of Americans are suffering. Despite that Republicans have no intention of serving the American people, they are more interested in a petty vendetta for having lost election. This do nothing Party is planning on going from the Party of No to the Party of Impeachments.

YouTube- Impeachment Do Nothing Party

Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

DeMartMan — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:21:25 GMT

In the era of politicians talking about repealing the 14th Amendment and limiting the 1st Amendment we need to ask the logical follow-up question of, Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed? Many gun enthusiasts don't realize that the 14th Amendment actually strengthened the 2nd Amendment. In this video a man has fought to be able to carry his gun on a playground. The question comes to mind, "what is he afraid of?" Many have said that even if he has a right to carry a gun it isn't the right thing to do.

YouTube- Should the 2nd Amendment be Repealed?

This is just soooo wrong!

Mott the Hoople — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:21:49 GMT

YouTube- Pee Wee Herman at Sturgis

Beer Review: Samuel Smiths Imperial Stoudt

Stupid Superstition — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:28:03 GMT

I'm a big fan of British beer, far more so then German beer (doesn't mean I don't love a good bock or dunklewiess though). So it should come as no surprise I'm drinking a high alcohol, heavy bodied, RIS from a noted British brewer. RIS (Russian Imperial Stouts for you beer proles) are one of my favorite styles of beer, so I try them as often as I can find them. Anyway's on to the review.

A: Typical of the style, it is black. About as black as motor oil, with a very rich, tan head that spans about 3 finger widths in my glass. Head recedes to about 1 1/2 fingers and stays for a minute or so, so I'd rate it's retention very high, with a good lacing effect long after.

N: Malts, lots of malts. Again this is typical of the style, and rather pleasing to me, so I won't complain. Specifically I noted a good roast, some caramel and what I believe to be hazel. No noticeable alcohol, but that doesn't mean it isn't lying in wait.

T: Sweet, but not overtly so, with enough hops to balance out the presence, though not enough to have their own flavor. The alcohol hits in after you swallow and offers a nice warming sensation, though it too is balanced and not overpowering.

M: Surprisingly, for a beer this rich in flavor and dark in color, the body is remarkably light. Still heavier than most lager an d lighter style beers, but not as heavy as most RIS I've had in the past.

D: Because of the light body this is more drinkable than your typical RIS, though that's not saying much. It's still something to sip on, preferably after dinner. I'd say I could have three at most in a sitting and still find them pleasant. Would be a lovely drink to go with some chocolate cake or some fudge.

Overall this is one great beer. As I said earlier, I love RIS and this is a great example of one. I'd recommend it to anyone who can handle it.

How to effectively procrastinate...

Stupid Superstition — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:48:39 GMT

....I'll finish this later.

Jan Brewer Admits She Was Wrong About Beheadings

christiefan915 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:36:45 GMT

And people think this fear-mongering woman is credible.

"Brewer apparently first referred to beheadings during a June 16 interview with Fox News, talking about "the kidnappings and the extortion and the beheadings and the fact that people can't feel safe in their community" in discussing controversy surrounding the immigration law.

She went further in a June 27 interview on Phoenix television station KPNX when asked about the earlier beheadings claim.

"Oh, our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded," Brewer said."

OOPS! Never happened!

"Yesterday, however, she admitted to the AP, in reference to the alleged beheadings:

"I misspoke, but you know, let me be clear, I am concerned about the border region because it continues to be reported in Mexico that there's a lot of violence going on and we don't want that going into Arizona."

And with that vague comment, she has decided to turn down further debates, in an effort to block her opponent from explaining why she's wrong. She explained:

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," she said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long. And I just felt we needed to move on."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/09...ommented-24h-5

Tony Blair still wants to rule the world

tom prendergast — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:29:34 GMT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ashington.html

A little instruction?

egordon0315 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:43:34 GMT

Would someone please instruct me as to how to post a photograph, specifically a jpg, in response to a post here?

The Sound and the Fury

christiefan915 — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:04:49 GMT

For anybody who still thinks Palin is a viable candidate for the GOP.

"Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder, she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits—a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family—and the sadness she has left in her wake."

(Continued)