Division Championships Thread
— Ace

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 AM | Comments (1147)
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

State of Fear, 2011 [Andy]
— Open Blogger

This post should bridge the Sunday book thread and the forthcoming NFL chat/pointy-elbowed cheerleader pic bashing thread quite nicely. On the one hand, it touches on State of Fear, Michael Crichton's 2004 novel that continues to be a remarkably accurate assessment of the politicized science behind the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax. And on the other, well ... carbon footprint from all that heavy breathing or something.

The "big reveal" in State of Fear was that the environmental movement was basically the new home for Western communists after the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites. There was a remarkable piece in the Vancouver Sun a couple of weeks ago entitled Confessions of a Greenpeace founder. It was written by Patrick Moore, who was indeed a founder of Greenpeace and has a new book out called Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. Here's the money quote from the article, but you really should read the whole thing:

The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.

What?! Why, that sounds like something straight out of a novel!
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:23 AM | Comments (254)
Post contains 809 words, total size 6 kb.

Sunday Book Thread
— Monty

It's going to be a real grab-bag this week, my groovy babies: I had to fit my reading into whatever little pockets and hollows were available in the spaces between work and what I often laughingly refer to as my social life.

I'm still laboring on Taruskin's Oxford History of Western Music. As I said, this will be a project of a year or more, and given that the five volumes in this set are not only long but information-dense, it takes me awhile to get through a chapter. (I have to digest pages out of these books, as one would digest a good meal).

Another book I had occasion to dip into was Kernighan and Ritchie's The C Programming Language for a software-maintenance project at work. I've often thought that this book has remained an information-technology classic for so many years because it is such a well-written and concise book -- it runs to only 250 pages or so, and it neatly encapsulates the language. (Many other boat-anchors of programming books could learn by this one's example. Brevity is the soul of wit, guys.) C's influence is still strong in the systems-programming and embedded spaces, and lives on in the Mac platform in the guise of "Objective-C". Every programmer really ought to have a copy of this excellent book on his or her shelf.

On the fiction side of things, I must confess, I've not really seen anything that calls to me. Much of the new fiction I see is either of the "chick-lit" sort that involves spunky or troubled women searching for love in a hostile world, or trendy "lit'ry" stuff that has about as much dramatic weight as a cotton-ball. It's the same old fictional story -- New York writers think that New York is the center of the Universe, and most literary publishers and editors live in New York, so you tend to get the New York view of the world more often than not. The young twentysomething Vassar and Brown-educated women who tend to be the front-line readers and editors of novels have determined that anything smacking of adventure, excitement, violence, or even a male point of view is "genre" and therefore not "literary". I expect that men are deserting the fiction market not so much because men don't like to read, but because female-oriented publishers don't really know (or much care) what men want to read.

What are you all reading?

Posted by: Monty at 05:33 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 413 words, total size 2 kb.

When Bad Things Happen to Good Statistics
— Geoff

Uh-oh - looks like I'm an idiot, just after I accused Mr. Bookman of being one. He did correctly quote the federal civilian employment, and I screwed it up. I've struck out that portion of the post and added some more better paragraphs before it.

A Mr. Jay Bookman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution decided to try to edumacate the rabble by posing a little quiz to his readers. It's the sort of misleading article that will naturally go viral in the Kos/TPM/Olbermann community. He makes 3 points (I'll address 2), all supposedly crushing the GOP's rationale for reducing spending. At the end of his little Q&A post, he smugly declares: "I think thatÂ’s enough for today. Class dismissed."

Well, that sort of class explains why Johnny can't read and the Democrats are averaging more than a $ trillion/yr in deficit spending. For instance, one of his big points is that the GOP plan to reduce the federal civilian workforce by 15% is completely ridiculous. It will take us back to 1950 levels, and besides, federal civilian employment was almost at its peak when Reagan left office!

As you can see from his supporting table, however, Mr. Bookman is not telling the whole story. Federal employment actually peaked in 1968, under LBJ. Reagan essentially froze civilian employment at civilian agencies, which had increased by 50% under LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and he restored some 100K civilian jobs at the DoD, which had lost 400K jobs since LBJ's administration.

Bookman also doesn't tell you that since Reagan's time, civilian employment at the DoD has dropped by another 450K, while civilian employment at other agencies has risen by another 200K. Cutting 15% of the jobs in civilian agencies will only take us back to 2001 employment levels. It is the DoD, which has already operating at 1950 civilian employee levels, that has been cut to the bone and will be hamstrung by another 15% loss. But I doubt that Mr. Bookman is truly concerned about the strength of the DoD - he'd prefer you to think that the domestic operations of the government will be crippled by draconian personnel cuts. It's just not true.

But Mr. Bookman is an idiot who can't even read the supporting table that he himself linked. Yup, he's quoting total federal employment (including military), not just civilian federal employment. In reality the 15% reduction will take us back to 2001 levels, not 1950. And the prize for highest level of Federal civilian employment actually goes to . . . . . Barack Obama for his outstanding effort of 1,357,000 employees in 2009!!

Mr. Bookman's observations on federal spending are similarly flawed not as obviously brain-damaged, but flawed nonetheless. He starts out like this:

1.) From fiscal 2001, when President Bush took office, to fiscal 2007, when Democrats took over the Senate and House of Representatives, total federal spending increased each year by an average of:
A. 4.39 percent B. 5.35 percent	C. 6.57 percent D. 11.86 percent
2.) From fiscal 2009, when President Obama took office, through fiscal 2011, when Republicans took over the House of Representatives, total federal spending increased each year by an average of:
A. 4.39 percent B. 5.35 percent	C. 6.57 percent D. 11.86 percent

Where the answers in bold are "correct." In case you're too Tea Partied out to get the point, he spells it out for you:

ThatÂ’s right. Between fiscal years 2009 and 2011, federal spending increased by an annual average of 4.39 percent. Between 2001 and 2007, it increased by an annual average of 6.57 percent.

Well that certainly makes us look foolish, doesn't it? Here we've been advocating budget austerity, and it turns out that we were the big spenders all this time! Color me chagrined.

Except for a few minor points, that is. Such as:

1. As I recall, we weren't actually happy with Bush's & Congress's spending from 2001 - 2007. In fact we were downright displeased. And in fact, the distrust generated during that period led to a popular movement known as......oh, yeah, the Tea Party, which has flogged the GOP into trying to cut spending. So, Mr. Bookman, the very people you're talking down to are the people who are one step ahead of you.


2. When revenues are increasing, increasing spending isn't as irrational as when revenues are plummeting. The Bush era had its own recession to deal with, but the Bush team was able to create a revenue/spending situation with steadily decreasing deficits. The fact that the Dems didn't respond adequately to the realities of the current revenue situation is a huge black eye for that party and its philosophies.


3. He's lying.

Perhaps that last point could use a little expansion. Did you notice anything odd about Mr. Bookman's questions? Like the ginormous missing gap between FY07 and FY09? Here's a plot of federal spending, using the exact tables that Bookman used:

You can see the outrageous spending increases of the GOP on the left, and the temperate, modest, restrained spending increases of our "we're-not-good-enough-to-deserve-him" President on the right. But that gap - what's that all about?

Note to Mr. Bookman: when you've bumped up spending by 29% in a two-year period, it's pretty easy to throttle back for a few years. When the lowest of your team's past and projected deficits is higher than the highest of your predecessor's, then maybe you should pipe down - talking about federal budgets may not be your best strategy. And when deficits average $280 billion (as during the Bush/GOP majority years), it's much easier to rationalize deficit spending w/o budget cuts than when they average $1.14 trillion (as in the years since). Not that we like rationalizing deficit spending at all.

Hence the Tea Party.

Posted by: Geoff at 03:38 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 965 words, total size 7 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Genghis

Master of Muppets:

more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:27 PM | Comments (729)
Post contains 97 words, total size 2 kb.

Nearly Half Of Americans Still Believe Vaccine Autism Link [CDR M]
— Open Blogger

It is utterly amazing that nearly half of Americans still believe this vaccination autism link and speaks to the very real problem of what happens when piss poor media coverage of shoddy science can have lasting and damaging effects on society and the economy. You can add the climate change/global warming crowd to this as well. Even though this bogus autism link was declared a fraud a few weeks ago, the word has not gotten out to the mainstream. These are the same people that believe in global warming. These are the same people that probably believe that Obama will probably pivot and focus on jobs this year too. We have a lot of work to do if we are gonna chip away at the 52%'ers.

Yes, this is a real poster that was used by the anti-vaccination crowd.

Here is what I had previously written on this over at Clarion Advisory, Why You Should Never Listen To Celebrities.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:05 PM | Comments (230)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Abortion Doctor or Angel of Death? (Ben)
— Open Blogger

I've been following the Philadelphia abortion/murder story as it is a popular subject here in the Pennsylvania newspapers.

One of Kermit Gosnell's alleged patients has come forward with some pretty damning allegations.

She was just fifteen years old at the time.

According to the victim, she told the doctor she did not want an abortion, but thatÂ’s when things got physical.
“That’s when he grabbed me and he started pulling off my clothes,” she says. “He did manage to get my clothes off and he managed to get me on the table. He would tie my arms down first and then tie my legs to the stirrups, that’s when he grabbed my leg and turned me to the side and began smacking me over and over again, the way you would a child”

The woman went on to explain that after striking her, Gosnell pulled out a needle.

“He injected a needle into my right arm and I said ‘I hope I die, so you regret this for the rest of your life.’”

She said she woke up 12 hours later and was no longer pregnant

There is no way to be certain this woman was a patient of Gosnell. Some may call into question why she only coming forward now. I would put forth the argument that since most of GosnellÂ’s patients were poor black woman that they had no real recourse. Let's say she went to the police, whose side do you think they would take? Would they side with the doctor or some impoverished fifteen year old girl?

Crossposted at The Clarion Advisory

Also, if you're interested in Pennsylvania news, GrassrootsPA is a good resource.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:00 PM | Comments (195)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Nullification Rises Again
— Gabriel Malor

I had this story in my twitter news brief on Friday, but maybe it bears some more discussion. It seems some state legislatures are mulling "nullification" bills targeted at ObamaCare.

Nullification is a long-discredited, but persistent idea that keeps popping up from disgruntled state legislatures. Proponents claim that state legislatures can invalidate federal laws that they deem unconstitutional. The idea is that states, as sovereigns in their own right who joined together to make the United States, are the ultimate arbiters of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and not the Supreme Court.

The theory was first championed by then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson against the Federalists, led by President John Adams. Jefferson and James Madison attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in Kentucky and Virginia. Their attempt was sharply condemned by several other states. Keep in mind that this was before Marbury v. Madison, so the idea that the Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of acts of Congress hadn't been established yet.

The doctrine came up again in 1832 when South Carolina declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state a series of federal tariffs signed into law four years earlier by President John Quincy Adams . The state legislature began military preparations to resist federal enforcement and the federal government responded by passing the United States Force Bill, which was essentially a declaration of war. The Force Bill authorized the seizure of persons and property to enforce the tariff and specifically authorized capture of ports and harbors.

It was a different time back then. Here was President Andrew Jackson's message on South Carolina's nullification ordinance: "[P]lease give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach." Before it could come to military action, South Carolina and Congress worked out a compromise tariff and South Carolina repealed its nullification law.

Of course nullification featured prominently in the national dispute over slavery leading up to the Civil War. The free states would frequently purport to nullify pro-slavery federal laws. The Supreme Court held that these attempts (which were made by state legislatures as well as state courts) did not nullify federal law.

The shoe was on the other foot in the 1950s, when nullification rose again, this time among southern states seeking to ignore Brown v. Board of Education. Of course the Supreme Court shot that down too and, ultimately, the states were forced to comply.

Now some legislators are proposing it again in relation to the healthcare reform law. I understand the urge to overturn ObamaCare and have written many times why I believe it is unconstitutional. But that does not mean that nullification is constitutional. Two wrongs do not make a right. A process already exists, within the letter and spirit of the Constitution, to do away with unconstitutional laws of Congress. President Jackson had it right:

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed

The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:59 PM | Comments (325)
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.

Moron Playoff Thing Update and NFL Trash Talkin Thread
— Dave in Texas

I'm behind my time, and owe everyone an update on the playoff fantasy thing that CDR M was kind enough to put on for us all.

So here 'tis.

1 sfla's Entry 198
2 waelse1 195
3 aaronrodgersismyhomeboy 187
4 CDR M 185
5 thebotnet 180

So consider this a pre-game pre-shit talkin playoff thread. Packers-Bears at 3 EST, Steelers-Jets at 6:30 EDT. I'm pickin the Pack by 9 and the Steelers by 6. Superbowl, Packers over the Steelers by 12.

You may have noticed during the football pickem thingy I kinda really suck at this. YMMV.

ALSO: Latest non-controversy controversy. Does he or doesn't he?

Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

Full disclosure. My hair (on my head) is not grey, and I still have it. I may have dodged the baldness bullet. Time will tell.

ALSO ALSO: via SWeasel, what's tackier, having a 50 year JFK logo, or the logo itself?

That's a stumper ma'am. TOTUS sez "NOOOOOOOO."

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:43 PM | Comments (103)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Snubbing The Senate Tea Party Caucus?
— DrewM

Did Marco Rubio snub the Senate's new Tea Party Caucus? Not exactly.

While he was running for office, Rubio declined the label of " tea party candidate," although he spoke positively about the movement and its goals and was considered its leading advocate among candidates for office nationwide.

Rubio "is proud of his relationship with the tea party movement and shares its commitment to attacking the debt, defending the free enterprise system and restoring the tradition of limited government," said spokesman Alex Burgos.

He confirmed that Rubio has been invited to join the tea party caucus, but "has not made any decision about caucus memberships at this point."

That's not a no, but clearly he's not running to sign up.

So far only Jim DeMint (SC), Rand Paul (KY) and Mike Lee (UT) have officially joined. Pat Toomey (PA) isn't saying yes or no. It seems only Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has officially said no thanks.

Johnson said through his spokeswoman Friday that he has no plans of joining the caucus.

“I sprang from the tea party and have great respect for what it represents,” said Johnson in a prepared statement. “The reason I ran for the U.S. Senate was to not only stop the Obama agenda but reverse it. I believe our best chance of doing that is to work towards a unified Republican conference, so that’s where I will put my energy.”

I imagine some will be disappointed, some might even be pissed but I think it is smart politics. What do the three members of the tea party caucus have in common? They are from deep red states. What do the two waverers and one "no" have in common? They come from purple to blueish states.

The tea party is a major force but it's not enough alone in places like WI, FL and PA (3 states Obama carried) to win. Those guys have to walk a fine line between pleasing their base and appealing to the wider electorate. When you are dealing with a larger universe of voters, you need to build coalitions to win. That's why flat out tea party types were able to do very well in smaller, more homogeneous House races but had mixed results in statewide contests (again, outside of very red states).

Bottom line...what's more important, that Toomey, Rubio and Johnson vote right and stay in office or join a meaningless group? If you think it's joining a group, you may be more interested in proving a point than in enacting real conservative policies.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:43 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.