Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The willow is too close to the house.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

I was promised a recession.

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

The revolution will be supervised.

People are complicated. Love is not.

You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / Weekend Bonus Wingnuttery

Weekend Bonus Wingnuttery

by | 74 Comments

This post is in: ,

There is a lot going on- some good (casualties are down in Iraq), some bad (pushing forward with the genocide measure), and some flat out wingnuttery. Since I have limited time, and won’t until tomorrow afternoon most likely (maybe even Tuesday or Wednesday), let us focus on the wingnuttery:

1.) Sadly, No! details how some on the right support the troops (hint: they call them liars!).

2.) Flopping Aces tries to dumb down the debate about torture with a new round of excuses. And given he cites Bill O’Reilly, it is our opinion he succeeded (in dumbing down the debate).

Consider this another open thread.

Reader Interactions

74Comments

  1. 1.

    Punchy

    What the hell is up with those pics on his post? Did he draw those himself? Did his kid? “blowtorch to skin”? WTF?

    Isn’t flopping aces a poker term? Do these “conservatives” all gamble now?

  2. 2.

    jcricket

    I’m a broken record (or a stopped clock, I forget which), but again it’s classic psychological projection from the wingnuts.

    The wingnuts are the ones who fake an illness and call in sick, lie to their familes, lie to the media, etc. when they need to. So everyone else must be doing the same. All they see in the world is fakers, liars, cheats, etc. just like them (lying about being gay, adultery, corruption/bribery, hackery/lack of logical thought, and so on).

    Remember that the Democrats lost the south, probably almost “permanently” (at least as far as the white vote is concerned) when they abandoned segregation as part of their party platform. Republicans are gunning for a similar near permanent loss of multiple constituencies. What’s breathtaking is how many they’re trying to lose at once by demonizing anyone who disagrees with their current course, even a little – the military, hispanics, blacks, non-evangelical christians, non-christians, fiscal conservatives, gays (not that they ever had that vote), union workers (ditto), low-income people, working parents (esp. those that can’t get healthcare).

    It’s more than the trifecta. It’s like the do-deca-fecta of Republican stupidity these days.

  3. 3.

    jcricket

    Related to the “lets alienate everyone we can” comment I just made, is this from Roll Call:

    “It’s just stunning to me,” one veteran Republican strategist told me this week, “that after seven years of Republicans complaining that the president won’t use his veto, [the White House and Republican Congressional leaders] choose their big showdown to be over children’s health care. Good Lord, it probably polls at 80 percent!”

    Added the GOP insider: “If we had been talking about cutting spending and waste in government for years, we could oppose SCHIP. But now we are finally going to get religion on spending?”

    So what advice would this Republican give his party’s Members of Congress? “If I were in a swing district, I’d vote to override. There’s no way I’d take a bullet on this.”

    I prefer the Republicans follow their glorious leader right off the fucking 2008 cliff. Let’s see if we can’t repeat the results of the last election. Do I hear 55+ senate seats? 2/3 congressional majority?

  4. 4.

    jcricket

    Turning this into the jcricket show. From the AP:

    At the same time, the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists in reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.

    Yes, “compromise” is necessary on children’s healthcare. That’s not going to work so well “Republicans sought to compromise (on) children’s healthcare. Democrats wanted to make sure poor, lower income and middle class children weren’t left without healthcare through no fault of their own. Do you believe that’s something we should compromise?”

    Gonna work real well as a campaign strategy for the Repubs. “Children’s healthcare was spendy. Plus I don’t think all those kids were really kids.”

  5. 5.

    ThymeZone

    Republican members seem to just be figuring out something we knew a long time ago: Bush isn’t loyal to them, or to his own party. He cares for nothing and nobody. If he really cared about the GOP he would have weilded the veto pen years ago and tried to lasso the spendthrifts in his own party.

    The man cares for nothing outside of his own interests. He doesn’t care if his party goes into the toilet next year.

  6. 6.

    Incertus (Brian)

    He doesn’t care if his party goes into the toilet next year.
    Without trying to psychoanalyze him too deeply, I wonder if he’s doing this deliberately. He’s a petulant little fuck, after all, and maybe this is his way of fucking everyone who didn’t bow and kiss his ass sufficiently.

  7. 7.

    Face

    At the same time, the White House sought to chide the Democratic-controlled Congress as the obstructionists in reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. It said Democrats were the ones who had shown unwillingness to compromise.

    Bush vetos a bill Congress passes, then tries to paint Congress as obstructionist?

    I’ve seen a whole slew of dishonest memes from this crew in 7 years, but this may just take the cake. This is dishonesty on a level I really didn’t think they could reach.

  9. 9.

    Davis X. Machina

    I’ve seen a whole slew of dishonest memes from this crew in 7 years, but this may just take the cake.

    Honesty and a quarter will get you a ride on the subway.

    I fully expect, by dint of repetition by a compliant, and compromised press corps, and in the absence of any competent PR pushback by the Democrats in Congress, to work.

    Up-is-down is the new black.

  10. 10.

    RSA

    From the Sadly, No! review:

    The liberal mindset is what causes PTSD. Boys being raised to men without a strong male role model, and having a false sense of what life is about is causing our young men to go to war and come home freaked out.

    I guess only phony soldiers get PTSD. You’d think that the military would be pro-active in their recruiting: “Be all that you can be. . .unless your dad was a liberal wimp, in which case you are not qualified to join the armed forces.”

    And on part 3 of the jcricket show, I think that while there’s a philosophical element to the opposition of some to SCHIP, others seem to think that if there’s the barest chance that an undeserving person will benefit from the program, it should be scaled back. It’s the “welfare queen”, “that guy may not have committed that crime, but he was probably guilty of something else” mentality.

  11. 11.

    OxyCon

    Michelle Malkin has hit the bigtime!
    The crazy ___ has found her way into a political cartoon.
    I love it! Great cartton.

  12. 12.

    wasabi gasp

    Other people got wounded, and all I got was a mental thing

    Troy needs to snap out of it. That wuss should just be thankful he doesn’t have REAL problems like my whopping huge “patriotic shopping” credit card debt.

  13. 13.

    Ted

    From the Raven commenter (with whom she agreed) about how liberal ideas are what cause PTSD in returning troops:

    You dumbasses that preach compassion are the problem. You have this false sense of the world, and I’d bet most of you are probably those people that thinking hunting is bad, multiculturalism is good and that people have a right to not be offended.

    For God’s sake people, shut up and realize that life isn’t fair, pretty or nice, and all one can do is the best they can, and coddling people that sit and whine and refuse to try to better themselves while sitting in a dark room watching TV and refusing to take their meds is not compassion, it is hurtful, evil and ultimately destructive.

    Isn’t that nice.

  14. 14.

    Svejk

    I wonder, was the ‘Floppy Aces’ dude a high school debater? He seems to think that if you throw as many lame points up as you possibly can… and your opponent doesn’t take the time to answer them all… YOU WIN THE DEBATE!

    The boy claims that Hillary’s position on torture, “As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period” means that she supports torture.

    Whatever.

  15. 15.

    RSA

    Isn’t that nice.

    Tough love. Didn’t Jack Handy say something like, “I think depressed people should just get over it”?

  16. 16.

    chopper

    Michelle Malkin has hit the bigtime!
    The crazy bitch has found her way into a political cartoon.

    looks more like michael jackson to me. then again…

  19. 19.

    jake

    Dear Turkey:

    I am so sorry to hear the US is being mean because over a million members of an ethnic group in your country ignored the warning label and used hair dryers while they were in the bathtub.

    I know you weren’t taken in when President Bush pretended to give a fuck about how many Kurds your former neighbor Hussein whacked over the years so naturally you are shocked that the US would actually, you know, speak out against mass murder. Only it wasn’t mass murder, they just…went swimming too soon after they ate. Forgive me for even suggesting such a thing.

    Now, I know some people might say this was nearly a century ago and it is only a resolution so why make a big huge stinking fuss? Some people might say this is a great chance for you to say genocide is horrible and you’re glad that shameful period is behind you and reaffirm your country’s desire to have peace and harmony with all of your citizens. Even those pesky Kurds.

    Some people might even look at you funny because you seem to be dodging the whole damn issue of why so many people in your country suddenly blipped off the fucking map.

    But people who would say such things are probably unwashed hippie types who could never understand why this is such a huge insult against … something that you have to do … something about it, possibly something to those pesky Kurds.

  20. 20.

    BARRASSO

    A friend of mine met Bush last weekend at a firefighters memorial dedication (his sister died firefighting last year) he is the first person I know that has met Bush, he said that the man is likable in person no matter how much you hate him, but that he has no idea how anyone who has met him could think he should be put in charge of anything. He came off as totally inappropriate and un-serious, joking around and what not, his overall impression was that he was just a doofus. I guess that is why I never watch politicians speak, just because they practice being likable so they can sneak horrible things by you as you are caught up in charm. I have yet to watch a debate, and I never plan on watching one, I’ll just read a transcript later.

  21. 21.

    Bubblegum Tate

    he said that the man is likable in person no matter how much you hate him, but that he has no idea how anyone who has met him could think he should be put in charge of anything. He came off as totally inappropriate and un-serious, joking around and what not, his overall impression was that he was just a doofus.

    I’ve known a couple people who have met Bush, and they all said pretty much this exact same thing: He’s really likeable and personable and all that, but he’s in way over his head and really shouldn’t be in a leadership position.

  22. 22.

    jake

    How does one decipher whether a person is truly mentally ill, or is exploiting their battle experiences to their fullest advantage?

    How does one decipher whether a person is truly a cold hearted blithering imbecile, or is exploiting the 28%ers need to stuff their heads further up their asses while chanting ‘LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAAAAR YOOOOOU!’ to his full advantage?

    Of course it doesn’t really matter when you’re a proud member of the 101st Fightin’ Keyboardists Brigade. Damn the Cheetos and full speed a head!

    I was going to ask if there’s any point wondering what these chicken shits would say about shell shock (PTSD v. 1.2), but I realized they’d recommend slapping the malingering soldiers out of their sick beds.

  23. 23.

    The Other Andrew

    I’m afraid that, for most of America, troops’ deaths are the only real barometer of how the war is going. Sure, we’re teaming up with bloody-handed insurgents to get attacks down, and the Iraqi government is still hugely corrupt, but that’s okay, as we’re doing slightly-less-horribly than before. And there are enough feel-good “local progress” stories to provide cover.

  24. 24.

    Goseph Gerbils

    RSA quotes Sadly, No! quoting cRaven:

    The liberal mindset is what causes PTSD. Boys being raised to men without a strong male role model, and having a false sense of what life is about is causing our young men to go to war and come home freaked out.

    “Real men commit atrocities instead. And like it!”

    Further down…

    “the man is likable in person”, “really likeable and personable and all that”

    Sociopaths can be.

  26. 26.

    grumpy realist

    One of my friends (now sadly deceased) knew Bush from back during the oil wildcatting days and described him to me as “the stupidest idiot I have ever met in my life.”

  27. 27.

    KCinDC

    Barrasso, an inappropriately joking doofus doesn’t sound very likable to me. A lot of Bush’s inappropriate humor is cruel, and he seems to get off on humiliating others, including his subordinates. Unless your friend is a drunken fratboy, I must be missing something.

  28. 28.

    grumpy realist

    NYT now has article up about the hand-wringing Putin is causing the White House with Putin’s fiddling around to remain the actual head of power in Russia.

    In short–Putin told the White House nitwit exactly what he and his team wanted to hear and has rolled them up like the proverbial noobish patsies. At this point the WH is waking up in the two-bit flophouse in Vegas, with a head like a rock, their pants down their ankles, wallet stolen, and realizing OH SHIIIIT.

  29. 29.

    TenguPhule

    At this point the WH is waking up in the two-bit flophouse in Vegas, with a head like a rock, their pants down their ankles, wallet stolen, and realizing OH SHIIIIT.

    If only.

    More like Putin is giving Bush fresh ideas.

  30. 30.

    RSA

    Putin told the White House nitwit exactly what he and his team wanted to hear and has rolled them up like the proverbial noobish patsies.

    Today’s special, Russian pirozhki. Tomorrow’s special, noobish patsies. Full of thick doughy goodness.

  32. 32.

    jake

    “accidental mechanical asphyxia,”

    Ah, those three little words that mean people won’t know where to look or what to say at your funeral.

    It would suck to realize you’re dying and someone is going to find you in full regalia. It’s too bad he didn’t have someone else to play with or at least serve as a spotter. Sorry to get all mushy but Larry Craig = Laugh Riot. This Shit = Sad.

    But for some reason this message board falls into the hee-larious category.

  33. 33.

    The Other Steve

    My girlfriend(who is Russian) pointed something out.

    When US wants to speak to Russia, the US has to go to Russia. Russia does not come to US. That is, it’s either Bush or Rice going to Moscow. We don’t see Putin coming to the US much, nor do we even see his Foreign Minster Lavrov.

    That evidences who is in control of the relationship.

    Lavrov is regarded in Russia as someone who really knows how to irritate Rice. He knows how to play the game of making Rice think she is getting something, but Lavrov receives the more beneficial dealing and Rice gets mad when she realizes she’s been had.

    The Russian perspective is that Bush is easily fooled, and Putin is a master at fooling him.

    I remember back in 2004, Putin said he really hoped Bush won the election. This is why.

  34. 34.

    The Other Steve

    The liberal mindset is what causes PTSD. Boys being raised to men without a strong male role model, and having a false sense of what life is about is causing our young men to go to war and come home freaked out.

    That sounds like DougJ.

  35. 35.

    Punchy

    Saw this 1 guy last nite.

    I cannot emphasize this enough–this is the most amazing life performance I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot. He invented that instrument, and plays it about 50 different ways. He travels a lot of college campuses…Tim, John…I reccommend this highly.

  39. 39.

    r€nato

    Pity that Larry Craig didn’t take his cues from the Vatican priest who, when caught soliciting sex from guys, proclaimed he was simply doing research.

    I can see it now: “I was doing research for a bill to prohibit gay sex in public areas! It’s disgusting what goes on in those stalls… and I should know!”

  40. 40.

    Peter Johnson

    Read this:

    1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

    2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

    3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

    4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

    1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

    2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

    3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

    4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

  41. 41.

    Peter Johnson

    Continued.

    5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn’t the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

    6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

    7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

    8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

    9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

    10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

    11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

    12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

  42. 42.

    Peter Johnson

    13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

    14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

    15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

    16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

    17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

    18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

    19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

    20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century…It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

    21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

    22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

    23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

    24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

    25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

    Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

  43. 43.

    rachel

    On the other hand, in Scientific American we find:

    The Physical Science behind Climate Change
    Why are climatologists so highly confident that human activities are dangerously warming the earth?
    By William Collins, Robert Colman, James Haywood, Martin R. Manning and Philip Mote

    For a scientist studying climate change, “eureka” moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.

    And the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable…

    The rest of the article is behind a pay-to-read firewall, but since I have the magazine (August 2007, pp. 64-73), I’ll type in a bit more of the introduction:

    …Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future. This increased certainty is starkly reflected in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the fourth in a series of assessments of the state of knowledge on the topic, written by hundreds of scientists worldwide.

    The panel released a condensed version of the first part of the report, on the physical science basis of climate change, in February. Called the “Summary for Policymakers,” it delivered to policymakers and ordinary people alike an unambiguous message: scientists are more confident than ever that humans have interfered with the climate and that further human-induced climate change is on the way…(p. 65)

    Here’s a small sample of what the article says about greenhouse gasses:

    Atmospheric concentrations of many gasses–primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons (gasses once used widely as refrigerants and spray propellants)–have increased because of human activities. Such gasses trap thermal energy (heat) within the atmosphere by means of the well-known greenhouse effect, leading to global warming. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide remained stable for nearly 10,000 years before the abrupt and rapidly accelerating increases of the last 200 years [see right illustrations in box on page 67]. Growth rates for concentrations of carbon dioxide have been faster in the past 10 years than over any 10-year period since continuous atmospheric monitoring began in the 1950s, with concentrations now roughly 35 percent above preindustrial levels (which can be determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores). Methane levels are roughly two and a half times preindustrial levels, and nitrous oxide levels are around 20 percent higher.

    How can we be sure humans are responsible for these gasses? Some greenhouse gasses (most of the halocarbons, for example) have no natural source. For other gasses, two important observations demonstrate human influence. First, the geographic differences in concentration reveal that sources occur predominantly over land more heavily populated in the Northern Hemisphere. Second, analysis of isotopes, which can distinguish among sources of emissions, demonstrated that the majority of the increase in carbon dioxide comes from combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). Methane and nitrous oxide increases derive from agricultural practices and the burning of fossil fuels. (p. 65-66)

    Really, I suggest anyone wanting to get informed about the state of science regarding climate change read what actual scientists have to say rather than political newsletters and blogs.

  44. 44.

    TenguPhule

    Shorter Prick Johnson: Listen to me! I quote the Winger Denialists so it must be true!

    Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

    I especially love this bit of nuttery. “Old stuff went through worst before, therefore nothing can kill it off!”

    When the filled Peter’s stupid tank, they forgot to turn off the pump.

  45. 45.

    Mr. M'Choakumchild

    Peter Johnson Says:

    Read this:

    Piss off. The source (The National Review) is partisan for the corporate wing of the GOP, which funds results-oriented research.

    I might as well demand that you read Soviet-published accounts of Lamarckian evolutionary theory. But I don’t make such a demand, because I am not a complete and utter twit.

  46. 46.

    jake

    Wow. Not one, not two, but three screen-length posts. The handle says Spoof with a dickish name, but the blog hogging says Dick with a spoofy name.

    Here’s a little hint: Posting an article of this size in its entirety gives the impression you were too fucking lazy to read the whole thing and/or too fucking stupid to clip relevant excerpts and/or you think this will force everyone to acknowledge Teh Truth.

  47. 47.

    TR

    Well, if a non-partisan, scientific journal like the National Review says so, then who am I to disagree?

    Have conservatives been in-breeding or something? There’s no way they got so stupid, so quickly on their own.

  48. 48.

    Lee

    Really, I suggest anyone wanting to get informed about the state of science regarding climate change read what actual scientists have to say rather than political newsletters and blogs.

    WHAT?!?! That is heresey on a political blog.

    As you can tell from Spoofy McSpoofer up there we ONLY get our scientific information from the Director of Information political blogs.

  49. 49.

    RSA

    Scientific peer review is much easier to get through when your peers don’t know anything about science.

  50. 50.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    I just realized something wrt Malkin and the other wingnuts (forgive me, I’m slow). It’s not about promoting the conservative viewpoint. It’s not about making the world a better place (in their opinion). It’s not about protecting the legacy of Reagan. It’s not about projecting their inadequacies or weaknesses on the “other.”

    It’s about winning. Period. For nothing more than the sake of winning. It’s about being able to point to someone, anyone, and saying, “We beat you! We’re #1! Suck it!”

    They will literally do anything, say anything, attack anyone, lie, slander, or smear, if it gives them the slightest advantage over their opponent, whoever that opponent may be and whatever viewpoint they represent, just to say that they won. The prize is irrelevant; the fact of winning is the only thing that matters.

    It’s like fighting an army of 3-year-olds.

  51. 51.

    Face

    It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.”

    Widely agreed? From the link you supplied, I’m going to have to agree. It’s clear. Wait….what link? Nevermind.

  52. 52.

    Librarian

    I think it’s worth noting that, on Fox Newswatch, both Cal Thomas and Jim Pinkerton defended what the right has done to Graeham Frost. Remember that the next time you read anything by those two. Remember that whenever Thomas talks about Christian values, or the next time Pinkerton attacks those nasty leftist bloggers.

  53. 53.

    John S.

    Peter Johnson-

    It takes more than a hopelessly long blockquote to convince people here that up is down. Perhaps regurgitating nonsense works on the friendly blogs you post at, but that shit doesn’t fly around here.

    Better luck next time.

  54. 54.

    Gus

    Hmmm, who is more authoritative, Scientific American or National Review. You’ve really given me something to think about there, Peter. I’d also like to know what WorldNet Daily and Pam Oshry think before I make up my mind, though.

  55. 55.

    r€nato

    Only unmitigated assholes spam comments threads when a simple link would have done.

    I guess Peter thinks that if he filibusters us to death, we’ll acquiesce to his unscientific bullshit.

  56. 56.

    jcricket

    From Paul Krugman (via Kevin Drum)

    If science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

    Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

    And Kevin’s follow-up comment:

    As Krugman notes, the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking. He’s “hectoring.” He’s “lecturing us.” He’s “holier than thou.” Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming, but as the childish campaign against Gore shows, they also oppose any effort to simply persuade people as well. Their excuse? Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero. It’s the kind of argument you’d expect to hear from a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.

    It’s exactly right. All they have at this point is temper tantrums (also known as baseless smear campaigns, pitching fits, ad hominem attacks, etc).

  57. 57.

    jcricket

    How did I miss this one? Wisconsin GOP chair faces charges in enticement of teenage boy

    The boy was found by police in Fleischman’s home on two occasions in late 2006 while being sought as a runaway from Ethan House, a home for at-risk youth. Now 17, he says he stayed with Fleischman at his house and a cabin, where he was provided with alcohol and cannabis, and regularly fondled.

    Since Republicans ask of Muslims that they denounce terrorism any time they speak in public, I think turnabout is fair game. I think all Republicans should now be forced to prove they are not gay, corrupt and/or raping young boys. Also that they are against the same.

  58. 58.

    Tax Analyst

    shorter Peter Johnson, “this Shit is really Shin-ola because National Review told me so.”

    Peter, why don’t you eat it to make sure?

  59. 59.

    Julie

    Unless your friend is a drunken fratboy, I must be missing something.

    Aw, come on. Most of the drunken fratboys I know are capable of some basic human empathy. Then again, I am from a blue state, so maybe it’s that pesky ‘liberal mindset’ again…

  60. 60.

    Peter Johnson

    And here’s some good commentary on the saintly Frost family:

    When the parents agreed to make their son available to the Democratic Party as a spokesman for the program, surely they must have expected that their financial situation would become part of the debate. I am not, for the record, in favor of beating up on 12-year-old boys, but the family did willingly step into the political arena.

  61. 61.

    Gus

    Yeah, that’s some real trenchant analysis by that deep thinker Howie Kurtz. Thanks for that, too Peter. I’m learning so much today.

  62. 62.

    Tax Analyst

    Peter Johnson Says:

    And here’s some good commentary on the saintly Frost family:

    When the parents agreed to make their son available to the Democratic Party as a spokesman for the program, surely they must have expected that their financial situation would become part of the debate. I am not, for the record, in favor of beating up on 12-year-old boys, but the family did willingly step into the political arena.

    Peter, “Good commentary” is really just your subjective opinion. The boy stated that the program helped he and his family. He apparently thought that was a GOOD thing and that other families who don’t necessarily live in Maryland should be allowed the same type of help. Mr. Kurtz believes this to be a Carte Blanche invitation to intrude on all public and personal aspects of his family’s financial and private life-style, although he personally would probably back-away from trashing a 12-year-old boy trying to adjust to living with a brain injury. I’m sure everyone is just as moved by Mr. Kurtz’s outstretched humanitarian grasp as I am at this moment.

    You make reference to “the saintly Frost family”. I was unaware “sainthood” was part of the criteria for the SCHIP program or Maryland’s version of it. I was also unaware of the Frost family or those sponsoring the political advertisement making any claims to such sainthood.

    But you just hear what you want to hear anyway, and if you don’t hear it, well, you just make it up, right?

  63. 63.

    rachel

    Peter Johnson says that the National Review is an authoritative source on global warming science, when in fact they are a bunch of political hacks. He is also willing to fill entire computer screens with copy-pasted screeds from same. Conclusion: figuratively speaking, Peter Johnson’s brains are made of tapioca pudding.

  64. 64.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    Personally, going after the kid was wrong but the parents opened themselves up by stepping into the political fray. Maybe they did not weigh the possible results of becoming the poster family for S-CHIP, but it sure would have crossed my mind.

    While S-CHIP is a good program, the funding for it is far from fair. Reports are that upwards of 70% of the public is for the program. What about the other 30%? What is their problem with it?

    I would be willing to bet that more than a few of them are the smokers who will be having their pockets robbed to pay for the S-CHIP program. That is exactly what it is too, robbery. Taxing one thing to pay for something else that is completely unrelated to the item being taxed is outright theft.

    IMO, a program that is intended to benefit the public should have its costs covered by the very public that wants it. It is easy to be for a program when the money for it is not going to come out of your pocket. I wonder how much of that 70% support for S-CHIP would wilt away if it was paid for via more payroll taxes (or any other tax that comes out of the pocket of the general public)?

    If this passes, am I supposed to tell my doc that I can’t quit smoking because I am supporting the health of children, and they are depending on me for financial support? How many of those kids will realize that their health is being maintained at the expense of the health of others?

    You may not like cigarette smoking or smokers, but it is our right to smoke, whether or not you like it. Keep these ‘sin taxes’ up and one day your beer will be taxed to pay to pay to expand physical education classes for the kids in school to prevent them from getting fat. Or some other stupid plan that the pols use to try to make themselves look good.

  65. 65.

    JPRICE

    OH, THANKS PETER JOOHNSON, THE RIGHTWING TROLL, YOU SOUND LIKE THE RIGHTWING SOUTHERN BAPTIST/REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST I WORK WITH WHO HAS A SON WITH A REAL DISEASE BUT VOTES AGAINST SCHIP (BY SUPPORTING THE KOOLAID 30 PERCENTERS) AND WHO CAN’T VOTE AGAINST BUSH (THE WAR PARTY, AS HE SAID) BECAUSE THE APPARENT EQUALS ARE “THE LEFT AND ITS PRO-HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY”. I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD NEVER HEARD ANY MAN SAY PRO-HOMOSEXUAL LOBBY WHO HAD NOT HAD A DICK IN HIS MOUTH. AS FOR HIS DISEASED-UP KID, I TOLD HIM TO JOIN THE ARMY (DON’T ASK DON’T TELL ABOUT HOW YOU TALK ABOUT GAY SEX ALL THE TIME, I ADVISED) AND ENJOY ITS HEALTHCARE AND SUPPORT HIS COKEHEAD BOY GWBUSH

  66. 66.

    Tax Analyst

    ConservativelyLiberal Says:

    Personally, going after the kid was wrong but the parents opened themselves up by stepping into the political fray. Maybe they did not weigh the possible results of becoming the poster family for S-CHIP, but it sure would have crossed my mind.

    While S-CHIP is a good program, the funding for it is far from fair. Reports are that upwards of 70% of the public is for the program. What about the other 30%? What is their problem with it?

    I would be willing to bet that more than a few of them are the smokers who will be having their pockets robbed to pay for the S-CHIP program. That is exactly what it is too, robbery. Taxing one thing to pay for something else that is completely unrelated to the item being taxed is outright theft.

    IMO, a program that is intended to benefit the public should have its costs covered by the very public that wants it. It is easy to be for a program when the money for it is not going to come out of your pocket. I wonder how much of that 70% support for S-CHIP would wilt away if it was paid for via more payroll taxes (or any other tax that comes out of the pocket of the general public)?

    If this passes, am I supposed to tell my doc that I can’t quit smoking because I am supporting the health of children, and they are depending on me for financial support? How many of those kids will realize that their health is being maintained at the expense of the health of others?

    You may not like cigarette smoking or smokers, but it is our right to smoke, whether or not you like it. Keep these ‘sin taxes’ up and one day your beer will be taxed to pay to pay to expand physical education classes for the kids in school to prevent them from getting fat. Or some other stupid plan that the pols use to try to make themselves look good.

    So I guess you’re a smoker, eh?

    Yeah, pummeling smoker’s with taxes probably isn’t fair. “Outright theft”…Uh-uh, no way. I have had “outright theft” perpetrated on me, and let me tell you, Mr. Smoker, what you refer to is not “outright theft”. What you are really referring to could possibly be called “Tyranny of the Majority”, I suppose. On the other hand I recall the days when NON-smokers were bullied and treated with derision if they asked for any measure of consideration from the once-upon-a-time majority – smoker’s. I don’t happen to hold that type of grudge, but I DO remember those days and SOME people DO hold that type of grudge.

    Uh…you suggest that only those supporting SCHIP should be required to fund it? Uh…wrong. If that were the case I would have withheld my tax dollars from virtually everything the current Administration has done. If you are part of our society your tax dollars and pennies fund everything that the society has decided to fund. If you don’t want to fund SCHIP I guess you can always move someplace where citizen’s or residents are not required to pay taxes. Good luck locating this Paradise, I hope the things you selectively decide to fund have enough support of the rest of the tax paying population to properly fund the things you consider your required needs.

    You can tell your Doctor any God-damned thing you want. Or you can quit smoking so you don’t have to feel ripped-off by parting with a few bucks towards the welfare of our next generation. Or you can recognize the shift in societal attitudes towards smoking and towards the need to provide health care to all children and just deal with it one way or the other. Shit, I can say that I probably won’t be around long enough to be bothered with their adult health issues so why should I care and why should I pay? But, Jesus Christ and Mother Theresa and Holy Moly, for some fucking reason I feel that the next generation in our country and even on this planet deserves every opportunity for a better life than the what those that came before had. Hey, maybe we’ll all get lucky and your Doctor will tell you to STFU and stop being such a self-satisfied, self-centered asshole.

    You have the right to smoke…the majority have the right to stick you with extra taxes for it and it seems at this time they have little compulsion or desire to tender you any slack. Personally, I think that’s probably a bit unfair…maybe even VERY unfair. And you know, if I wasn’t afraid of being the object of a political hit for speaking out in behalf of smoker’s right, well, maybe I would do so……ummm…?? Naw…don’t think so, really…guess you are on your own on that one, buddy…right where you seem to want to be.

    Have a nice day.

  68. 68.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    I did not say that those who support S-CHIP should fund it. I said that everyone should have to fund it. Putting the burden on one segment of our society is not fair.

    Yes, I am a smoker. Have been for over 35 years, and I am not one of the rude ones. My wife does not smoke, and I smoke outside. Always have, always will. If I am with others, I will ask before lighting up and if anyone objects I politely wait.

    Yes, it is tyranny by the majority. And it is outright theft, IMO. The minority have no say, and they are the ones who lose out.

    I could always quit, but then the liberals would probably deride me for not supporting the children. ;)

    Read what I said a bit better TA, I was quite clear on who should have to pay for this. If 70% of the public want it, then 100% of the public should have to pay for it.

    As I already said, I have no problem with S-CHIP, just the way it is being paid for. The burden should be shared fairly by all.

  69. 69.

    rachel

    I did not say that those who support S-CHIP should fund it. I said that everyone should have to fund it. Putting the burden on one segment of our society is not fair.

    I’ll go along with that.

  70. 70.

    TenguPhule

    Personally, going after the kid was wrong but the parents opened themselves up by stepping into the political fray.

    Uh no, they did not.

    You can’t blame the Frosts for the Republicans acting like Bloodthirsty Jihadists out to celebrate a bloody orgy.

  71. 71.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    What I meant by what I said was that in the environment of politics today, anyone who steps up to the side of the Dems is going to be shredded to pieces by the nutzis on the right. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention to the level of acrimony that the right has been exuding for the last decade plus. The right has their attack dogs, and nobody has a leash on them.

    If the parents were going to get involved in a national issue, they had to be aware that they were painting a big red target on their backs, and that would include their children too. If they were not aware of this, then they are in over their heads already. I don’t know anyone on the left who would stoop to this level, but the right has many people who are more than happy to do so. At the drop of a hat.

    I would hope those who attacked this family would be suitably embarrassed, but that will never happen. I am only against the funding method of S-CHIP, not the program itself.

    Speaking of the program, I have read that in Minnesota, 87% of the beneficiaries of S-CHIP are adults, in Wisconsin it is 66% adults, in New Jersey it is 38% adults, in Arizona it is 53%, and in Michigan it is 46%.

    I am only quoting what I have read, and I am not stating these figures as fact. My questions are, are these numbers correct, and if they are then what in the hell are adults doing being covered by a plan that is for children? If this is the case, then it should be S-FHIP, not S-CHIP.

    My wife and I live on combined incomes of less than $50,000.00 a year and have two kids. We have full medical coverage (dental too), and we have never taken a cent in public assistance of any sort. I know prices/costs around the country vary, but we live in a pretty costly area and are able to live very well in our own way. I sure would like more money in our pockets, but I think I will stick to earning it and not sticking others to pay my way.

    If the program targets who it is designed for (poor children), then that is fine. But if it is creeping into adult/family health care, then redesign the program and rename it, don’t let the program suffer from ‘mission creep’ like every other government program out there.

  72. 72.

    Tax Analyst

    ConservativelyLiberal Says: While S-CHIP is a good program, the funding for it is far from fair. Reports are that upwards of 70% of the public is for the program. What about the other 30%? What is their problem with it?

    Does this equal –

    Read what I said a bit better TA, I was quite clear on who should have to pay for this. If 70% of the public want it, then 100% of the public should have to pay for it.

    Hmmm…having trouble getting this “blockquote” thing right today…so let’s do it this way –

    Tax Analyst says: the first statement does not seem, at least to me, to say what you say in the 2nd statement, but I appreciate the clarification. Now maybe I was just in a grumpy mood last night (or maybe we both were), but my “whiner-radar” was picking up some heavy signals from your corner and I thought some of it was gratuitous…not that I don’t do my share of whining when the mood strikes. But nonetheless, I was having a hard time working up a great deal of sympathy for your plight…perhaps if a special tax was levied on windy, run-on sentences I might empathize more with you, but it ain’t happened yet, so I thought I’d throw in my two pennies worth and point things out from a different perspective.

  73. 73.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    Off the front, but what the heck…lol

    But nonetheless, I was having a hard time working up a great deal of sympathy for your plight…perhaps if a special tax was levied on windy, run-on sentences I might empathize more with you, but it ain’t happened yet, so I thought I’d throw in my two pennies worth and point things out from a different perspective.

    I could take lessons from you on long windy sentences… ;)

    How about a tax on condoms to pay for better bridges? That way mostly men will only have to pay. How about a tax on tampons? Then only the women will pay for it!

    The first quote you have above is only me saying that while 70% are for the program, I was sarcastically questioning why the other 30% are against it. Then I pointed out that it may be because they were the ones paying for it.

    Here in Oregon, Measure 50 on the next ballot is to raise tobacco taxes by 81 cents a pack. $8.10 a carton! It is supposed to be for the state children’s health plan, but there is a nice $65 million dollar a year blank check written to the state to spend as they see fit. Call it mad money.

    Because it sure pisses me off. It is estimated that 18% of Oregonians are smokers, and we will shoulder the whole cost that the rest of the state can use to benefit others. Add to that the fact that most smokers are lower income, blue collar types and now you are really ripping of the smokers…

    As I said, the plan to help those who need it is good and I have no problem with that, but the implementation flat out sucks. It is designed to appeal to the majority as they will not have to shoulder the cost. Nothing like passing an easy tax. Wait, tobacco is only the start. When they milk that dry they will move on to other goods and services to tax to death.

    If Measure 50 passes, it will be the first time a tax has been embedded into our state constitution.

    Grumpy mood? Damn right.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks