And so another Monday slouches on by.

Fox Shunning Watch: This has been pretty well covered by the blogosphere today but in case you hadn't heard about it, NPR put heavy pressure on Mara Liasson back in October to quit appearing on Fox News. She was told to watch the network for 30 days and reconsider. To her credit she refused to stop appearing. Frankly given the ratings disparity NPR needs her on Fox more than Fox needs NPR.

The Top 10 Scariest Scenes in Film
Okay the Exorcist always freaked me the hell out when I was younger.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (640)
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

Golf requires Zen-like powers of concentration.
That's why I'm going to be rubbing my joint in the back
of your neck while you putt.

But just the tip, just the tip. I promise, Mr. President.

Yeah I know this is old, and a joke that's been made by now.

But seems like something that I should note here.

In case you care, Tiger liked his sex "frantic" and "desperate," which is... well, normal enough, really. In a perfect world, I mean.

I have heard the number is up to 10, but I don't know, because I don't really read these articles. The only thing I can learn from them is that which I already know: My life is bad.

Thanks to Tim for suggesting I address the Golf Digest cover.

BTW: There are reports that OJ Simspon was beaten in prison, but now there are a bunch of reports of the prison denying that happened.

Fake but Accurate: In case you haven't heard, that really is the cover of Golf Digest. The picture, however, is photoshopped, putting together a Tiger pic and an Obama pic.

Tips Obama Can Learn From Tiger? Slapping me around, having his "frantic" way with me, leaving me looking "like a rag-doll" (as that article on Tiger Woods says)?

I guess Obama has picked up a few tricks from Tiger. Because pretty much America is feeling like Ernie Anastos' marital-aid chicken right about now.

Posted by: Ace at 05:18 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Headline: the eternal struggle between skeptics and people you should listen to, experts.

In Face of Skeptics, Experts Affirm Climate Peril

This is one of the oldest, cheapest media tricks there is, and one such that, if they were truly unbiased, they would simply change their stylebook to forbid evermore.

We've seen this trick a million times. Sketching the battle-lines in a debate, the liberal media will call the advocates from, say, the Brookings Institute experts or note their subject-matter of expertise -- economic forecasters, for example -- and their critics at Heritage conservatives.

Get that? You can either go with this presumably-apolitical unbiased expertise in the field being discussed, or you can go with this conservative.

All the time. All. The. Time.

Nevermind that the Brookings Institute guy's credentials might only be a JD and ten years of political advocacy. He's an "expert" by simple dint of his political persuasion. And nevermind the critic from AEI or Heritage might be a Ph.D. in economics (or whatever subject matter is under discussion), he's the "conservative" politico with an axe to grind but no understanding of the subject at all.

You know who wrote that headline, by the way? Well, I don't know either. Might have been an editor. But the article its attached to was penned with none other than Andrew "Andy" Revkin, he who was recently threatened with "The Big Cutoff" of his sources by eco-cultist Schlesinger. (Well, he co-wrote it with some other twink.)

Thanks to... Hmmm, forget who pointed this out. Sharkman?

Posted by: Ace at 05:08 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Ravens at the Packers.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:39 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Landrieu, bought and paid for and reversing her supposed former position of opposing funding abortion with taxpayer money.

Instead of the public option, we'll merely expand Medicare to cover those 55 years old and over, and Medicaid to those making up to $66,000 per year. (Poverty? Nope, triple the poverty level. Most people would say that's not a bad salary.)

enate Democratic liberals are seeking expansion of two large federal programs, Medicare and Medicaid, in exchange for dropping a government-sold insurance option from health care legislation sought by President Barack Obama, several lawmakers said Monday.

Under the potential trade-off with party moderates, near-retirees beginning at age 55 or 60 who lack affordable insurance would be permitted to purchase coverage under Medicare, which generally provides medical care beginning at 65. Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, would be open to all comers under 300 percent of poverty, or slightly over $66,000 for a family of four.

Senators and aides said the changes have been discussed extensively in recent days as a small group of moderate and liberal Democrats search for a middle ground to assure passage of the bill atop Obama's domestic agenda.
Given the complexities of the two programs, and the White House's goal of passing legislation by year's end, it wasn't clear whether the negotiations would ultimately prove successful, or whether they merely were a last stab by liberals to salvage some concession in a monthslong debate.

And how will we pay for such a huge expansion in the programs? Well, one, through taxing the hell out of everyone else, and two, cutting -- dare I say rationing? -- care from those who get it currently.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 04:12 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

(A series of daily-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.)

This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news.

After the break... more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 02:58 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 638 words, total size 6 kb.

I saw a couple of references to this in the comments, and a mention in the headline of an email; just saw now what the heck people are talking about.

He wrote this as the introduction to the new tree-killing apocalypse-hastening book he just wrote called Our Choice. Vanity Fair calls it "odd" that none of the reviewers mention the poem; I don't call it odd at all. I call it doing a solid for a retard you're fond of, like not pointing out he has ice cream cake all over his head.

Full Poem now added, courtesy of Reverend Al's Muse.

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

Here's what Vanity Fair says about the poem:

The result is a surprisingly accomplished, nuanced piece of writing. The images Gore conjures in his (untitled) poem turn a neat trick: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate.

Here's what I have to say:

Reviewers fail to mention
Gore's descent into sophomoric senility
Hide the decline

I do admit "lightning's celebration" isn't so bad. But pretty much any amateur college Poetry 101 attendee comes up with a similar successful mix-and-match word pairing like every third assignment.

Oh! It seems like I shouldn't even have to say this, but I hereby decree another Al Gore Poetry Jam Slam!

Remember, this is just an exhibition, not a competition.

Re-Post: The first post ever on this site-- apart from a post that simply said "Test" -- was "The Donkey," a parody of The Raven, mostly about Al Gore.

It's a bit dated -- looking, as it did, forward to the 2004 elections -- but I still think it's pretty good. Here's the link: Caution: Flagrant Potty-Mouth and General Puerility.

Posted by: Ace at 02:26 PM | Comments (305)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

California imposed tough new standards on buses and trucks to fight CO2 ("The Invisible Killer").

The "lead scientist" putting together the report that urged this, and a member of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), was a Ph.D. in statistics, so he's a scientist and can weigh in on global warming.

Odd, isn't it, that Ph.D. in statistics makes you an expert in global warming when your're on the leftist side, but makes you inexpert and entirely without standing to say anything at all when you're a "denialist," like McKittrick and McIntyre.

So there's the story: A guy who's not a scientist by their definition of "scientist" is imposing a hugely costly regulatory scheme on California, despite only being a Ph.D. in statistics.

Except that's not the story; that's just typical hypocrisy in credentialism, selective credentialism. The only thing that you need to be an expert in global warming is a zealous belief in global warming.

The story is that he's not a Ph.D. in statistics, unless you count a mail-order diploma mill for purposes of a Ph.D.

They hid this fact from other members of the board, even after discovering the fraud. They took the vote anyway and covered it up. Now members of the board are crying foul and asking for a re-vote.

There are calls to suspend California's statewide Truck and Bus Rule because of allegations that research behind the legislation was tainted.

Members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have taken to the media to request that the board suspend the truck rule, which would require exhaust filter retrofits and engine upgrades starting in 2011 and the replacement of pre-2010 model engines between 2012 to 2022.

CARB members Ron Roberts and Dr. John Telles allege that CARB had tried to cover up that the lead scientist and coordinator of the research used to justify the new emissions rules, had lied about holding a Ph.D. in statistics.

Hien T. Tran's Ph.D. was the mail-order version, according to local media reports, and senior CARB officials were aware that his falsified credentials before voting on the truck retrofit legislation.

Telles, a cardiologist on the board, wrote a letter to the air board's chief counsel, saying CARB staff failed to meet its "ethical if not legal obligation" to provide all board members with pertinent information before a vote on a state regulation.

Like Telles, Roberts is generally in favor of the rule, but admonished how it was achieved. He penned a 750-word guest commentary in the San Diego Union-Tribune last week, alerting the public to the cover-up.

A "stupid" "distraction" and "not a real scandal." Gee, that's sounding like a bit of a chorus (x4, improvise and fade-out).

Beginning with two editorials in late December 2008, this editorial page repeatedly has criticized the California Air Resources Board for its headline-hunting decision to adopt unprecedentedly sweeping and costly diesel-emission rules at its meeting earlier that month. Soon after that meeting, we had confirmed that Hien Tran – lead author and coordinator of the study justifying the rules – lied about having a Ph.D. in statistics from the University of California Davis.

Our subsequent reporting showed senior air board officials from Chairwoman Mary Nichols down knew of TranÂ’s academic fraud before the Dec. 12, 2008, vote but chose not to inform the public, the media or most of the board members who voted for the diesel rules.

The outrageousness of this deceit is finally being acknowledged. One of the board members who was kept in the dark – Fresno cardiologist John Telles – learned of the deception earlier this fall. Now Telles and another board member, San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts, are calling for suspension of the diesel rules.

But the reaction from the agencyÂ’s hierarchy and board members to this common-sense request has been obtuse to the extreme.

Chief Counsel Ellen M. Peter told Telles that the board officialsÂ’ failure to reveal the deception before the Dec. 12 vote didnÂ’t amount to a violation of proper procedures.

In a letter he co-wrote that was published in the Union-Tribune, board member John Balmes – who was informed of Tran’s fraud by e-mail on Dec. 11, 2008, and failed to tell Telles and other colleagues about it – rejected all criticism of the air board for its actions in the Tran matter. But in an e-mail to Telles, he said “in retrospect” the Tran report should have been withdrawn – which can’t be reconciled with his public comments.

Nichols is worst of all. In an e-mail to Telles, she acknowledged Tran’s fraud was “illegal and unethical” and apologized for not disclosing it to the full board before the vote. But she characterized the matter as a “distraction” and a “stupid personnel problem” – not a real scandal.

Trust scientists who shriek about global warming, even if they're not scientists, even if they're frauds, because if they believe in global warming, they are scientists worthy of your trust.

'Round these moron parts we call that a tautology. And not just a tautology, but a tautology that depends on another flaw in reason, the appeal to authority. An appeal that's not only logically invalid but entirely false in this case.

Thanks to KarenM.

Posted by: Ace at 12:41 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 892 words, total size 6 kb.

"I don't want to kill him"

But she did because she had to.

I was going to do some snark about loving a story with a happy ending but it's clear this woman is troubled by what she was forced to do. At least she'll be alive to deal with it.

Via @Andylevy

More on the story below the fold.
more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:24 PM | Comments (278)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

This statement is taken out of full context. But -- the question posed is whether people should trust Google, specifically, or treat it as their "friend." Like, should you be writing certain private emails using gmail? Should you trust Gmail as if it were a confidant? Should you search for naughty stuff on their search engines, assuming confidentiality?

Now, given that question, which could have been answered with a simple "Of course Google will protect your privacy to the extent possible," the CEO here chooses instead to riff on the idea that basically everything that transpires in cyberspace is an open secret just waiting to come out.

He answered:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

That seems like a strange answer to me, and a worrisome one. It may be true. It may be a bit of The Shape of Things to Come prognostication about the future -- no more secrets, and you'd better get used to living an open and transparent life.

But a very odd answer for someone whose business provides search engines and an email service which one presumes to be sort of private.

Gawker has a lot of fun noting that this particular guy blacklisted CNET for posting private information about his salary and other stuff on the internet, and seems to have more female companionship than his looks, or his marital status, would warrant, and so this statement -- if you don't want private stuff outed, don't do stuff you don't want outed -- seems curious in the extreme.

Thanks to WTFCI.

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (97)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.