Liberals play ostrich with facts they don’t like, and American discourse suffers

The other day, Mr. Bookworm asked me to tell him “what the right wing wackos were talking about.”  Among other things, I mentioned that people were interested in the fact that Hillary had recently announced that she would not return as Secretary of State for Obama’s second term, leading to speculation that she was planning a primary challenge.

“That’s not true,” he exclaimed.  “That’s just another of those conspiracy theories that get your little blogosphere so excited.”

Since we were in the car, I mildly responded that it was true and changed the subject.  He was troubled, though.  That night, after I’d already turned my computer, he told me I was clearly (a) wrong or (b) making things up or (c) in thrall to a conspiracy theory, because his computer search didn’t turn up any mention of Hillary quitting her job.

“That’s peculiar,” I said.  “Give me your computer and I’ll find it for you in a second.”

His response startled me:  “No.  I’m not going to let you use my computer to waste time looking for something that’s not true.”

“Well, if I find it, then it is true and I haven’t wasted time.”

“No.  It’s not there so don’t look.”

Next morning, when I turned on my computer, it took me about 1 minute to find a CNN article entitled “Clinton says no to second run” (with a permalink giving the alternative title as “Clinton-running-for-president”).  The text was straightforward:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer she does not want to serve a second term as secretary of state or run for president of the United States.

[snip]

Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?

No

I wasn’t wrong; I didn’t make it up; there was no conspiracy theory.  On a liberal venue, in an on-air interview with a liberal media personality, Hillary explicitly announced her upcoming retirement.

I actually wasn’t going to write about this little interaction with Mr. Bookworm, because although silly, it was no big deal.  We go through this all the time.  I say something, he challenges my veracity, and then he refuses to look at the proof I send him.  I thought it was just one of his little eccentricities.  I only mention it now because a Lee Stranahan post establishes that Mr. Bookworm is not alone.  His behavior appears at the highest echelons of liberal thinking.

Lee Stranahan, as you may recall, is the long-time, self-admitted, well-known Progressive who wrote a HuffPo column calling out the MSM on its hypocrisy regarding civility:

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

[snip]

Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.

Don’t take my word for it, though. Look into the story of death threats in Wisconsin yourself and see who has been covering the story and who hasn’t. Try for a moment to see this story from the perspective of those who you may disagree with on policy and ask yourself how this looks to them. Can you blame them for feeling that way? Then take a few seconds and read those questions I asked you at the beginning of this article.

And then ask why progressives shouldn’t expect more from our media — and ourselves — than we expect from our political adversaries.

What I’ve since learned is that Stranahan, rather than sparking a wave of self-analysis and honesty from his fellow Progressives, has been subject to opprobrium for having developed a working relationship with Andrew Breitbart.  He’s a sell-out, they say, making his criticism completely irrelevant.

Stranahan, in response to these attacks, has written a post explaining why he ended up in a working relationship with Breitbart, despite the fact that Stranahan hasn’t abandoned his Progressive principles.  Stranahan never expected to like Breitbart.  Their relationship started after Stranahan watched, and was offended by, the media ridicule directed at Jon Stewart for his Rodney King moment in Washington, D.C., (a “can’t we all get along” speech that Stewart’s subsequent outings on his show proved he didn’t mean).

Stranahan decided to “get along” by interviewing the most reviled conservative media figure.  He picked Breitbart.  I’ll let Stranahan explain the rest:

So I thought about writing a HuffPost piece about this idea that the left was missing the entire point of what Stewart was trying to say. I wanted to interview someone, so I tried to think of the most reviled person in the world by left and Andrew Breitbart sprung.to mind. I only know a little about him. I remembered he was involved the Shirley Sherrod thing and that ACORN thing but my knowledge of these events was pretty shallow. I knew he was called a racist, a homophobe and every other name under the sun. But I also remembered something I’d seen months earlier.

It was an appearance on Good Morning, America with Andrew Breitbart and Eric Boehlert. I’d watched it because I knew Eric Boehlert, who’d written about me and the John Edwards story in his book Bloggers on the Bus. So when I watched, I was a lot more inclined to agree with Boehlert than Breitbart.

There’s a part in that segment where Breitbart discusses the story about racial epithets being yelled at members of the Congressional Black Caucus by members of the Tea Party; a story that was widely reported in the left wing blogosphere. It was so widely reported, I just assumed it was true but here was this Breitbart guy saying he had video tapes that proved the incident didn’t happened as described. Okay, that was interesting – maybe I had the story wrong and this Breitbart guy seemed eager to prove it,

And then – on live television– Eric Boehlert & George Stephanopoulos totally blew off Breitbart’s offer to show them the video tapes.

That stuck with me for months. The story was either true or not and here was someone eager to get to the truth and the liberal host and other liberal guest weren’t a bit interested. And it seemed so dishonest. I knew if they thought the video proved their case, it’d be shown all day and night. It didn’t make me proud to be on the same side ideologically as Boehlert and Stephanopoulos.

(You should read the rest of Stranahan’s post, but that’s the point I wanted to make for purposes of my own post.)

For Stranahan, this was a light bulb moment.  For me, it’s my life.  Mr. Bookworm is the most common culprit only because he’s the one with whom I most frequently converse.  But I see the same thing with other liberals:  If it challenges their dogma, they don’t want to know.  They understand that bubbles only work if no one pokes them with a sharp object, and facts are the ultimate sharp object.  (Or, as John Adams more eloquently said, “facts are stubborn things.”)  They’re not going to let anything near them that might puncture their tidy ideological bubble.

I’m not optimistic about reasoned political debate in our country if one side of the debate, after hurling insults and misinformation, then sticks its collective fingers in its collective ears, and hollers “Nyah, nyah, nyah.  I caaaan’t hear you.”  It’s not that we’re talking different languages or different values.  It’s that, thanks to the ostrich media’s (thankfully weakening) stranglehold on the dissemination of information, we’re not actually talking at all.

I need your help

I’ve mentioned before that I’m planning on epublishing a book consisting of my favorite old posts.  The book represents the faint hope that, after seven years of compulsive writing, I’ll be able to make a little money.

I’m actually on on track for getting the book out in the next couple of weeks.  I’ve got most of the editing done and am now concentrating on the actual publishing which is, of course, confusing.  One of the confusing thoughts was figuring out to create a good cover.  Thinking about the cover made me realize something I’d forgotten:  I don’t have a name for the book.  Even worse, I don’t have the imagination to come up with a name for the book.  I want it to be a name that is catchy, imaginative and at least somewhat descriptive.  (The last is important, because I’m hoping to get buyers who may not be familiar with me.)

Don Quixote had a good, clever idea — Out of the Blue — but I’m a little worried that people will think it’s about flying, rather than a conservative in liberal land.  Also, the book isn’t really about my experiences as a conservative in liberal land.  I mention it (indeed, my first essay is on the topic), but it really is my usual smorgasbord of opining on everything from politics, to education, to presidents, to media, etc.  I can see titling the book Out of the Blue followed by a colon and a descriptive clause, but I don’t know what that clause would say.

You all have proven over and over that, when it comes to word play, you’re the professionals and I’m the piker.  Any suggestions?

Also, if you were looking for a book of political and social essays to while away several hours of reading, how much money would you be willing to pay?  The e-purchaser, unless he or she is already familiar with the writer, is gambling that he (or she) isn’t just throwing away money.  This is always true when buying books, but it’s especially true in the self-publishing ebook world.  People who self-publish don’t give the buyer the Simon & Schuster or Random House assurance that the book is even written in intelligible English.  (I’ve downloaded a lot of free Kindle books that were completely unreadable.)

I can’t price too low (e.g, the 99 cent level), because I’ll never achieve enough volume to make that low price worth my while.  Likewise, I can’t price too high (e.g., the $10 level), because I don’t have a publishing house or reputation at my back.  I was thinking $5.00, which struck me as a price that some people might be willing to gamble for a long read.  What do you say?

There are some things you simply don’t farm out — and national security is one of those things

I am cheap.  Very cheap.  That means that I’m a bargain hunter.  I like used books and cheap clothes.  I prefer to buy American but, if my pocketbook tells me that America isn’t a good deal, I’ll usually follow my pocketbook.  Usually, but not always.  If buying something from another country would put me in danger, I don’t do it.  That’s why I don’t buy canned goods or, indeed, anything that goes in my mouth, from China.  The t-shirts may be shoddy, fading and ripping quickly, but they won’t poison me.  The food just might.  (I’d like to avoid Chinese honey, too, which is chock full of antibiotics, fungicides, and industrial pollutants, but the fact is that most of the major manufacturers that use honey as an ingredient buy cheap Chinese honey.)

Not only will I avoid products that will harm me, I’m also unlikely to pay someone for service if I know that the person’s agenda is hostile to mine.  You don’t have the local thief install your burglar alarm.  I don’t even need active hostility to back off.  I also won’t buy service from someone who doesn’t have a vested interest in doing a good job for me.

None of the above is rocket science.  It’s good old-fashioned common sense — which, of course, is the one thing government lacks.  This current administration, especially, seems to go out of its way to abandon common sense.

I mention all this now because of a news story that the MSM is ignoring, but that should matter to everyone concerned both with American national security and with the American economy.  Here’s the deal:

There may be additional heartening employment news in the same sector [Boeing got an air tanker deal], following a request by the U.S. Air Force to identify suppliers for a new kind of airplane that can perform the light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) missions that are being requested by our military leaders.

The new aircraft’s purpose is to allow our U.S. pilots to more effectively execute the tactics, maneuvers and procedures that are needed for the type of counter insurgency warfare that we are currently seeing in Afghanistan and other conflict zones around the globe. In turn, these American pilots will train their partners and developing nation counterparts to fly these same planes and defend themselves, with a goal of reducing the need for U.S. military presence in the region.

Two companies are vying for the Air Force contract — Hawker Beechcraft, a Kansas-based company, and Embraer, a Brazilian owned and operated company.

The Red State article to which I linked explains that Hawker Beechcraft has a good history and a good product.  I’m sure that’s true.  I’ll even stipulate that Embraer also has a good history and a good product.  My question, though, is why in the world our government, which has never before been constrained by bargain shopping and common  sense, is willingly giving another country the blueprints for and access to one of our military products?

Here’s a perfect anecdote to illustrate my concerns:  Think back to 1976 and the Entebbe rescue mission.  The Israeli military’s raid on Entebbe to rescue hostages is one of the great stories of derring-do, intelligent planning, heroism, and creative thinking.  But it was also made possible by one significant fact:  More than a decade before the hostage-taking, an Israeli company had built the airport.  This meant that Israel had the plans.  As it happened, back in 1976, the fact that a non-Ugandan company had this type of information was the best thing that could have happened, helping the good guys win, and soundly defeating and humiliating the bad guys.

In this case, though, we’re the good guys.  I’d classify the Brazilians as the neutral guys for now, although their decision to follow in our footsteps and elect an anti-capitalist president is worrying.  While I believe and hope that Americans can and will shake off the Obama’s pernicious socialism, it’s not so clear that Brazil will.  If Venezuela is any guide, once socialism is firmly ensconced in a Latin American government, that government is no friend of ours.  Even without that specific scenario, though, the fact is taht one never knows what will happen in another country.  Right now, we’re witnessing events in the Middle East that caught the West entirely flatfooted.  Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy.

The whole friend/enemy thing is tolerable if you’re talking about buying t-shirts and canned foods or tables and cars from your frenemy, but it comes much more fraught when you’re talking about national security.  The optimal situation is one in which no country, Brazil included, knows too much about a “new kind of airplane that can perform the light attack and armed reconnaissance missions that” are part of modern American military tactics. Ten years from now, when the world has shifted, we may find ourselves bitterly regretting placing that information in another’s hands.

In addition to the security angle, there’ s also a matter of steering tax dollars, especially during a big recession.  It’s one thing for the marketplace to make decisions about where the money flows.  If I want to send my money to China, well, that’s my choice.  If enough people do that, than China gets rich or American companies figure out how to compete.  The government, though, is not the marketplace.  We’re not talking millions of customers making market-responsive decisions.  Instead, we’re talking about a huge, unwieldy, unresponsive bureaucracy taking millions and millions of dollars that taxpayers are forced to hand over to the government, and then sending it far, far away from the taxpayers.  This makes sense if the American market cannot supply the product — but we know that, in this case, the American market, made up of American taxpayers, is perfectly capable of providing the product.  There is therefore, no economic reason to ship our security over seas.

My congress people are Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Lynn Woolsey.  In other words, contacting them is about as useful as using tweezers to move mountains.  If you’re in a district that boasts slightly responsive congress people, though, let them know your concerns about this deal.  Sending military airplane manufacturing out of the country is bad for national security and bad for the economy.

Defining terms so that they align with values

Anecdote 1:  My son is now, and always has been, fascinated by weapons.  He’s especially intrigued by sniper rifles, and their spectacular range, especially when in the hands of a talented shooter.  I therefore emailed my son a link to an article about two British snipers in Afghanistan who killed 75 Taliban fighters in just 40 days.  Mr. Bookworm was in the room when my son read the article, and he started reading it too.

Mr. Bookworm was horrified.  “I can’t believe you sent our son this stuff.  These are cold-blooded murderers.  They boast about killing people.”

My son froze.  Had mommy just sent him the written equivalent of a snuff film?

I responded, “Are you calling my father a murderer?  [As Mr. Bookworm and my son both know, my father spent five years fighting Nazis, sometimes in hand-to-hand bayonet combat.]  This is war, not murder.  In war, you kill the enemy before he kills you.”

My son relaxed.  Mr. Bookworm harrumphed, but subsided.

Anecdote 2:  Last night, we got around to watching HBO’s television show about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which occurred 100 years ago this month.  The show was interesting insofar as it had interviews with descendants of those who survived the fire (including one of the factor owners).  The pictures of the young women who died were moving.  The show was also boring insofar as it was one of the most heavy-handed pro-union polemics I’ve ever seen.  It was as if the SEIU wrote the script.  Subtlety would have been more attractive and, probably, more effective.

When the show ended, Mr. Bookworm said to me, “You and your right wing wackos want to get rid of all those protections.  You want to go back to the time when nothing stopped the rich people from exploiting the workers.”

“I don’t know where you get that idea,” I said.  “I think it’s a good thing for the government to impose minimal, reasonable standards for workplace safety.”

“Hah!  ‘Minimal.’  That’s like no standards at all,” he responded.

“No,” I replied.  “That’s not what I mean.  I just mean that bureaucracies tend to be self-propelling, and they enact ever more standards.  I’m totally on board with life-saving safety standards.  But you know that OSHA gets involved in everything from chairs to types of pens used.  If they could, they’d dictate what color paint to have on the wall, because more people find pink soothing, while some people say that green makes them bilious.”

“Harrumph.”

I thought of this little exchange when I read Evelyn Gordon’s post about the way in which the international community has cheapened to meaninglessness such terms as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”

It’s hard to argue with the Israeli diplomat who called Richard Falk, the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestinian rights who accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” an “embarrassment to the United Nations” yesterday. But the problem isn’t that Falk lies, or even that he does so with the UN’s imprimatur. The real problem is the larger trend he represents: The self-proclaimed “human rights community” increasingly treats minor issues as indistinguishable from major crimes.

[snip]

By defining “ethnic cleansing” so broadly as to even include tenant evictions, Falk is essentially equating such evictions to events like the Srebrenica massacre, in which Bosnian Serbs massacred more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, and demanding that the world be equally outraged by both. But humans have a limited capacity for outrage, and the international community has a limited capacity to intervene. Thus demanding international intervention in cases like this actually reduces the likelihood of intervention in genuine cases of ethnic cleansing like Srebrenica — i.e., in precisely those cases where the victims most need help.

My interactions with a liberal show precisely the same thing:  To a liberal, two soldiers fighting a war against a committed enemy determined to kill them (and, as 9/11 shows, us) are “murderers.”  In the same extremist vein, the government should control workplaces, because all safety issues are equally serious.

In both situations, Mr. Bookworm’s “harrumph” was a tacit admission that I’d talked him down from such silly and egregious definitions.  Most liberals, however, function in a vacuum or an echo chamber.  They never have anyone applying logic to their increasingly Orwellian vocabularies.  This wouldn’t be a problem if the Lefties never left their houses.  As long as they control the media and most educational institutions, though, it’s a big problem.  We need to talk them down harder and faster if we don’t want our world reduced to flammable, meaningless mush.

For the Left, it’s the right war, with the right leader

Glenn Reynolds has been enjoying himself pointing out the hypocrisy of many of those on the Left when it comes to Obama’s new war (“Watching the people who savaged Bush and called his supporters warmongers and so on now faced with watching the Lightbringer doing basically the same thing, only less competently, is too good a pleasure to forego.”)  One of his readers also pointed out something I’ve been noticing:  if you have liberal friends on facebook (as I do), they are absolutely silent about the newly declared war.

And why not?  This is the wet dream of liberal wars:  It hasn’t been billed as promoting American interests (and there is debate as to whether it does); it’s being led by the UN, which has been incapable of articulating an actual desired outcome; and a a pacifist, incompetent, disengaged American president is gratefully playing third chair, behind France.  This is the way wars should be fought. This is the Leftist version of a “good war.”

Bad wars are the ones that are sold expressly as advancing American interests; that have clearly defined, pro-American goals; and that are led, not by the international community, but by an American president who believes in the mission.  An incoherent war that sees America play second fiddle to the rest of the world is clearly a war that’s well worth the money spent.

Obama and drilling

Obama is encouraging Brazil to engage in precisely the type of oil drilling that he’s refusing to allow in America, and then promising that America will be a market for that oil.

My question for you:  Why?

Is Obama so anti-American that this is just part of an ongoing effort to destroy her financially?  Or beneath that Leftist exterior, is he an old-fashioned imperialist who would rather see a poor “other” country destroyed by the environmental risks of oil drilling, while his own country remains environmentally clean and pure?  Or is there another reason I haven’t thought of?

For myself, I lean to the first choice.

Just Because Music — Elvis’ “Burning Love”

Sending coals to Newcastle

Sadie gave me the heads-up about a new State Department initiative (on your taxpayer dime, of course):

The BBC World Service is to receive a “significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.

In what the BBC said is the first deal of its kind, an agreement is expected to be signed later this month that will see US state department money – understood to be a low six-figure sum – given to the World Service to invest in developing anti-jamming technology and software.

The funding is also expected to be used to educate people in countries with state censorship in how to circumnavigate the blocking of internet and TV services.

The logistics of this make sense.  As the article goes on to say, the BBC already has a significant presence in these regions.  However, given that the BBC is as anti-American, anti-capitalist, antisemitic, and anti-Israel as the repressive countries in which it is now about to enhance its presence, I can’t help but feel that we, the taxpayers, are being asked to pay to bring coals to Newcastle.

You get what you pay for with city government

One of my “crossing the Rubicon” moments came upon me about twenty years ago, when I went to the main branch of the old San Francisco public library (before it moved to its snazzy, very expensive new digs), and tried to check out a book.  I found myself standing in a line of about 60 people, all waiting to check out their books.

Standing on tip-toe (remember, I’m short), I was able to see that there were three active stations, each with a library employee checking out the books.  Considering that checking out books isn’t “rocket surgery,” I was at a loss to figure out why it was taking so long.  I discovered the problem when I got to the head of the line:  the clerks weren’t trying very hard.  To be honest, they weren’t trying at all.  Watching molasses drip on a cold day would be a more scintillating experience than watching these public servants processing the public.  To add insult to injury, they were rude too.

I walked out thinking this to myself:  “I doubt anyone of those clerks is paid more than about $28,000 per year, plus benefits.  That’s $84,000 cash per year, not including the benefits.  Why don’t they just hire one good person for $50,000 (plus benefits, of course), and get the job done right at a savings to the City of $34,000 per year, plus two unused benefits packages?  But of course, that couldn’t happen.  The unions would never go for it.  Their goal is to have as many employees as possible who, once they get their jobs, can never be fired, no matter how shoddy their work.  This isn’t about serving San Franciscans, this is about maximum employment for union members.”

I walked out of that library much more conservative than when I walked into that library.

This memory came back to me courtesy of an Instapundit post (hat tip:  Earl):

MORE ON THOSE UNDERFUNDED / OVERGENEROUS PUBLIC PENSIONS: Report: SF Pension Crisis Much Worse than City Claims: Adachi-commissioned analysis puts gap at $6.8 billion–not official figure of $1.6 billion. “The city’s pension fund is officially underfunded by $1.6 billion. Nation’s study argues that the pension fund is relying on a 7.75 percent annual rate of return that is unrealistic over the long term. The study argues for 6.2 percent, which it says was the average rate of return in the capital markets from 1900 through 1999.” Frankly, that “conservative” number looks overoptimistic to me. 4% is probably more realistic.

The fog of Obama

If you talk out of both sides of your mouth, and with forked tongue, on any given day something you said might, for a moment, be true.  When it comes to the Middle East, Obama has said absolutely everything:  leave them to themselves, intervene, self-determination, democracy no matter what, hunt down dictators, let their own people take care of them, non-intervention, intervention, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  No wonder European leaders were left stating that they had absolutely no idea what Obama stood (or stands) for.

It’s exhausting to keep track of someone who is simultaneously puffing fog out of one end, while covering his ass at the other.  Jim Gehargty has collected a whole bunch of Obama’s “playing both ends against the middle” moments. (Hat tip:  Lulu)

Sunday mish-mash (plus Books and an Open Thread)

Although my regular stat counter is still refusing to speak to me, another stat counter has indicated that my numbers have plummeted, going from the thousands to the hundreds overnight.  (I feel just like the stock market.)

Since I’m not going to panic and assume that everyone has suddenly abandoned me en masse, I’m wondering if any of you have had any difficulty getting to my blog.  If so, please let me know, and I’ll pass the word on to my wonderful blog master.

I’m still working on the trial, which is kind of interesting.  The last time I headed trial preparation, my client did not have a sophisticated scanning system.  This client, however, does.  Every document is already a pdf in the system (or, if not, it’s easily added).  Because the case relies heavily on photographs, I’ve also set up Picasa, so that we can easily review the hundreds of images and decide which best support our case.  Then, the photos go on a disk, Kinko’s prints them up (which is cheaper than using your own ink), and you’re off to the races.

I’ve also prepared a chart identifying each document (which is necessary anyway for the mandatory exchange of trial exhibit info with the opposing party).  In the chart I have a column that doesn’t go to opposing counsel.  That column has hyperlinks to each document’s location on the server.  Essentially, I’m preparing all the documents for trial without touching a single piece of paper.  It’s time consuming, but kind of fascinating, and it means that we never lose a document.  Woo-hoo!

Still, interesting or not, the whole thing is time-consuming, and that doesn’t even count the trial brief and pre-trial motions, all of which I’m working on today.  Then, off to the symphony.

You can see where this is going, right?  Not a lot of blogging.  It’s another Open Thread day — and a “what are you reading” day.  As for me, when I’m not being a legal eagle, I’m reading 101 Things You Didn’t Know About Irish History: The People, Places, Culture, and Tradition of the Emerald Isle.  It’s not deep, but it’s easy, fun and interesting.

Saturday open thread

I’ve got a trial to prepare for today, so won’t be blogging, at least not now.  Have it at, you guys!

Ben Howe does it again with a great video about debt

Losing my feedback fix

As you can see, my blog still works.  A technical glitch at the WordPress end, however, has locked me out of my stats.  I’m now in serious withdrawal.  I didn’t realize how hooked I was on stat checking.  I’m still writing, but it’s enormously frustrating to me that I can’t see the numbers or links coming in.  They’re never staggeringly high (no one will confuse my stats with those at HotAir or HuffPo), but they make me happy.  I feel like a mouse that keeps tapping the little bar, but doesn’t get the cheese or cocaine, or whatever the heck they give rodents in lab studies.

MSM finally notices threats against politicians (sort of) *UPDATED*

From the moment Gov. Walker squared off against the public sector unions in Wisconsin, conservatives noticed something interesting:  The mainstream media, which was all aflutter about politician safety after a paranoid schizophrenic aimed a gun at a Democratic Senator, wounding her and killing a heroic Republican judge), showed remarkable restraint in reporting about threats against a Republican governor and Republican senators.  Indeed, the MSM’s restraint was so great, it failed to do any reporting at all.

The overwhelming silence got to Lee Stranahan — a self-identified Progressive — who felt compelled in all decency to call out the MSM for its hypocrisy:

Three questions for you.

1. Do you think of Republicans and the Tea Party as dangerous, violent extremists?
2. Do you think the Wisconsin protests over GOP Governor Scott Walker’s move to strip public sector employees of collective bargaining were peaceful?
3. Do you scoff at the right wing notion that mainstream media like the New York Times, the TV networks and NPR have a liberal media bias against the conservatives?

If you answered ‘yes’ to all three of those questions, then let me ask you one more…

Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?

[snip]

Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.

Don’t take my word for it, though. Look into the story of death threats in Wisconsin yourself and see who has been covering the story and who hasn’t. Try for a moment to see this story from the perspective of those who you may disagree with on policy and ask yourself how this looks to them. Can you blame them for feeling that way? Then take a few seconds and read those questions I asked you at the beginning of this article.

And then ask why progressives shouldn’t expect more from our media — and ourselves — than we expect from our political adversaries.

I don’t respect Stranahan’s political beliefs, which are antithetical to mine, but I certainly respect his personal integrity and his honesty.

I’m happy to report that one news reporter, perhaps influenced by Stranahan’s post, finally realized the error of her ways and focused on the threats to conservative politicians.  So it is that, today, the SF Chronicle has a front page story entitled “Threats directed at any state GOP.”

Isn’t that great?  The Chron is reporting about threats against California conservatives.

Okay, I confess.  I’m leading you down the primrose path.  What the headline really says is “Threats directed at any state GOP ‘turncoats.’”  In other words, the other threats against the GOP that the Chron seems willing to acknowledge are those coming from other members of the GOP.

But should California’s Republican politicians start barricading themselves in their houses and traveling with guards to protect themselves from their fellow party members?  Are they having their outlines drawn in chalk on the sidewalk, their home addresses published, their children threatened?  Well, not really.  What’s actually happening is that California state GOP people are hearing from the grassroots that, if they don’t pay attention to calls for true conservatism, they won’t be reelected!  How’s that for a front-page-worthy threat?  Those crazy Tea Partiers know how to play mean and dirty.

I’m beginning to understand the threat algorithm in the MSM:  Eight years of vile threats and imaginings against George Bush — ignore.  Insane shoots Senator he’s been stalking for four years — blame Tea Partiers.  Progressives and public union members threaten Wisconsin conservatives with death — ignore.  Tea Partiers warn that they won’t reelect wobbly GOP members — phrase so vaguely on newspaper front page that it looks to the casual reader as if Tea Partiers are ready to kill their own.

Being a member of the Progressive MSM means you never actually have to think.  How relaxing.

UPDATE:  Deroy Murdock compiled, verbatim, some of the Wisconsin death threats that the media yawns about.

UPDATE II:  When I wrote the above, I said that the SF Chron article was written to imply that Tea Party activists were actually violent.  At the time, I didn’t have proof.  Now I do.  As reliably as a stopped clock, one of my liberal facebook friends wrote that the California GOP was made up of “thugs” who “beat the crap” out of people.

Watcher of Weasels submissions

It’s rare for me to say this, but I’m going to have to skip this week’s vote, because I have neither the time nor the energy to give this week’s submissions (as well as the Honorable Mentions) the attention they deserve.  However, just because I can’t read them doesn’t mean you can’t:

Council Submissions

• The Noisy Room – Coming Soon… The Daley Czar
• Joshuapundit –Horror Returns; Sleeping Israeli Family Murdered by Arabs, Including An Infant
• The Political Commentator – If a Japanese sovereign debt default was predicted before, what will happen now? (Video)
• Right Truth – A Closer Look at Rep. Keith Ellison’s Past **UPDATED**
• The Colossus of Rhodey – Ignorance And Hypocrisy
• Bookworm Room – The nuclear plant problem in Japan — and the problem with ideologues in science
• The Razor – The Japanese Earthquake Of 2011
• Rhymes With Right – Opposition To Outrageous Pay And Benefits For Public Employees Isn’t Class Envy
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Nippon Relief
• New Zeal – Is Richard Trumka a DSA Socialist?
• The Glittering Eye –The Policy Of The One Horse Shay
• VA Right – Are Environmentalists to Blame for Japan’s ‘Meltdown’?
• Simply Jews – How do you tell a moron that…
• Snapped Shot – Calculating Protest Coverage

Honorable Mentions

• The Grouch – Should we be Americans First? Is that a Good Thing?
• Capitalist Preservation – One Flew Over Obama’s Mess
• Divided We Stand, United We Fall – Jackass Journalism
• Theo Spark – Legit Ways To Help Tsunami and Earthquake Victims in Nippon

Non-Council Submissions

• The Patriot Post–Democratic Socialism submitted by The Noisy Room
• Mark Steyn/The Corner – Dead Jews Is No News submitted by Joshuapundit
• Pajamas Media –Obama, Wright, Farrakhan, and Gaddafi submitted by The Political Commentator
• Sultan Knish – An Open Letter To Harvey Weinstein submitted by Right Truth
• The Chronicle of Higher Education – The Intellectual As Courtier submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Pajamas Media/Charlie Martin–Fear the Media Meltdown, Not the Nuclear One submitted by Bookworm Room
• Gateway Pundit –Madison Students Will Stay After School… submitted by The Razor
• National Association of Scholars/Andrew Bieszad – Islamo-Correctness at Hartford Seminary submitted by Rhymes with Right
• First Take/CFR – Saudi Arabia’s Missteps Into Bahrain submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• RBO – Lying Liars: Center for American Progress Cooks the Numbers for Its Fauxroots ‘Main Street ovement’submitted by New Zeal
• Megan McArdle, The Atlantic – The American President submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Katy’s Conservative Corner – How I Made It With No Health Insurance, No Job, Big Medical Expenses and No Obamacaresubmitted by VA Right
• Elder of Ziyon– Hamas Attacks Unity Rally In Gaza submitted by Simply Jews
• strong>BLACKFIVE – Brian DePalma has American blood on his hands submitted by Snapped Shot
• Nick Gillespie/Reason – 3 Essential Facts About the Current Moment: We’re Out of Money, The Public Sector is Overpaid, & We Can’t Tax Our Way Out of This submitted by The Watcher
• Shrinkwrapped – Oh No, Are Kidz Can’t Lurnsubmitted by The Watcher

Long day

My mom had a mild TIA today.  She’s doing well now, and they’re checking her meds to see if they contributed to the problem.  I’m optimistic that, while she is aged enough to be ever closer to her Maker, today is not going to be the day.

The whole experience reminded me of something about myself:  I’m good in a crisis, so long as the crisis is not one of my own making.  If the bad thing that happens is my fault (an accident, unpaid bill, missed deadline, lost motion), my whole fight or flight system goes into overdrive.  I neither fight nor flee, trying instead to undo the bad thing I’ve done, but I get the full range of panic responses:  accelerated heart beat, breathlessness, sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, cold sweat, and guilt, guilt, guilt, coupled with heavy doses of humiliation, embarrassment and shame.

In a crisis that’s not of my making, though, one that doesn’t see me feeling guilty or responsible, I’m cool as a cucumber.

When I told this to DQ, I said it was embarrassing that I was so self-centered that I only broke a sweat when it involved me.  He said it wasn’t so bad:  it just shows that I’m most troubled when I feel I should have (or should have had) some control over the situation.

Be that as it may, I’m now scrambling to meet work deadlines, dealing with the kids’ needs, and preparing to head back to check on my mom later, so blogging for the remainder of today will be nonexistent.

A crazy man and an anti-capitalist paradigm

Crazy people — really crazy, the ones with serious schizophrenia or other mental illnesses — reflect the times.  (And yes, you’ve heard me say this before.)  In a pre-scientific era, they heard voices from God or the Devil.  In the post-WWII era, the men from Mars spoke to them, and they paraded around in tinfoil hats.  That’s why I found it unsurprising that a manifestly delusional 24 year old, after hearing the anti-capitalist voices in his head, took a gun to a local bank so that his “manifesto” could be heard:

Anthony Lee, 24, told police that he had planned to protest the bank on March 14 because 3.14 is the number for pi, according to a court affidavit filed by Twin Cities police Detective Cheryl Paris.

“Lee said he felt that everyone deserved a piece of the pie in reference to the amount of wealth in the United States,” Paris wrote.

The affidavit also provides excerpts from a manifesto Lee wrote in the hopes of garnering publicity for his cause.

“goal: change the capitalist monetary system (non-violently); gain national media coverage,” Lee wrote.

“suppliez: poster board w/ writin on it, pizza money, BB gun, backpack full of water, sheetz w/ subject content (az evidence) 2 discuss with the bank president, n maybe a rolled up blunt w/ an ipod the boredom-az well az a positive frame of mind.

“when: 3.14, before the House of Reps makez the final decision, n the government shutz down (unemployin millionz)-2 pay off the $14 trillion deficit…”

This was not a terrorist act:  That is, this was not a sane person deliberately using terror to advance a specific political/religious agenda.  This was a truly crazy guy, whose craziness takes on the coloring of the world around him.

An update on Michelle Malkin’s missing cousin

Michelle Malkin’s family continues its non-stop search for her cousin, Marizela.  As Michelle’s update explains, in addition to a dedicated website, there’s also a Paypal link to help defray mounting expenses.

The bullied kid as metaphor

Earthquakes, tsunamis, nuclear meltdowns, market collapses, Middle Eastern turmoil . . . .  It’s been a busy week news-wise.  So you want to know what the hottest story is?  None of the above.  Per Allahpundit, the absolute hottest story is this video:

The story behind the video is that the bigger boy, Casey Heynes, has been bullied for years by swarms of kids at a difficult school in Australia.  The video represents the moment when, finally, he has his Popeye moment (“That’s all I can stands and I can’t stand no more.”).

Allahpundit decries the video’s popularity:

Between popping iodide tablets and fretting about the carnage to come in Benghazi, the world’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more bully body slam.

Which means, I guess, that I owe Obama an apology for goofing on him over his NCAA brackets. No worries, champ: Your priorities are just fine.

This is one of those rare occasions when I think Allahpundit has misread the zeitgeist at work here.

The video, distilled to its essence, shows that something bigger, whether a kid, a nation or a culture, can be swarmed and bullied by smaller kids (or nations or cultures).  For a long time, the big one takes it.  It doesn’t seem sporting to use that size against the aggressors.  If you’re not really being hurt, and if you’re not naturally aggressive by nature, you just stand there, sucking it up.  Indeed, if you’ve been told for a long time that you’re worthless and evil, part of you may even think you deserve the bullying.  But there comes a moment, finally, when enough is enough.  No one, no nation, no culture, can or should passively accept such unrelenting abuse and attack.

The thing is that when someone (or something) big finally snaps, that snap is BIG too.  Casey didn’t retaliate with a little push back or punch.  Casey used his size and strength with punishing force.

We in the West have been bullied relentlessly for years.  We are insulted, pilloried, reviled, blown up, shot, beheaded, robbed, etc., with impunity.  We’ve taken it.  Indeed, not only have we taken it, but we’ve funded those who attack us and opened our borders to those who steal from us.

Currently, our leader is one of those who thinks that we’re worthless and evil, and that we deserve the attacks, opprobrium and theft.  He’s not striking back.  But we, the people, in our hearts, are approaching our Popeye moment.  We’ve turned the other cheek as long as possible, knowing that our vast strength means that we run the risk of ourselves becoming bullies should we respond to the endless provocations.  There comes a moment, however, when you pop the spinach and strike back.  That’s what Casey did and the video is popular because that’s what we, in the West, long to do.

Between popping iodide tablets and fretting about the carnage to come in Benghazi, the world’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more bully body slam.Which means, I guess, that I owe Obama an apology for goofing on him over his NCAA brackets. No worries, champ: Your priorities are just fine.

A true Kindle bargain

I wrote yesterday about the vagaries of buying books on Kindle.   I look for the cheap stuff and, occasionally, I get very, very lucky.  Michael Walsh, a National Review contributor, has just put out one of his own books out on Kindle for an introductory price of $0.99.  The book sounds great, and you can’t go wrong with the price.  I’ve already ordered my copy and those among you who are Kindle users will undoubtedly want to do the same.

Another question regarding the nuclear power problems in Japan

Please, somebody explain this to me.  I’ve heard it reported that the original problems with the reactors were caused by the power going off when the earthquake hit.  Of all places, wouldn’t one expect a nuclear power plant to have a failsafe emergency backup power generator?  Was there no such backup power or did it fail, too?  Or did the report I heard miss the mark completely?

“We have met the enemy and it is US”

The two competing news stories — Japan’s nuclear reactor and the unstable narrative in the Middle East — provides the best illustration I’ve ever seen of the fears that move Progressives and conservatives.

Progressives fear us:  Westerners.  They fear our technology and our values.  The nuclear reactors, while currently just a dreadful problem, are imminently apocalyptic to them.  They have visions of Neville Shute’s On the Beach, which saw a few atomic bombs depopulate the entire world because of drifting radioactive clouds.  Unsurprisingly, they’ve even tried to tie the earthquake, a natural and ancient phenomenon tied to moving tectonic plates deep underground, to man-made climate change.

On the other hand, I (and, I believe, conservatives generally) fear them:  the Easterners, appearing before us in the form of Jihadist Islam.  Even as Mr. Bookworm, the liberal, is mesmerized by Japan, I’m terrified by what’s happening in the Middle East.  The most radical Islamic tyrannies are hanging gamely onto power; the slightly more moderate tyrannies have fallen, leaving a vacuum for Islamists to fill; and the people with bombs (nuclear and otherwise), oil, natural gas, and deep hostilities to Israel and America, are lining up aggressively, facing off against each other and, of course, against us.

Perhaps the fact that those zany Islamic Middle Eastern aggressors have us in their cross-hairs explains Obama’s eerie passivity.  After all, he, being a good Progressive, fears us more than them.  At bottom, “they” are his allies, not “us” at all.

Raymond Davis freed

Accepting as true the narrative that Ray Davis is indeed a CIA contractor, and was working undercover in Pakistan, one of our most dangerous “friends” in the world, I am very happy to report that Davis is free and heading home.  (I say “accepting as true” because, even assuming Davis is CIA, there was clearly some very deep game afoot here, so every statement uttered falls into the maybe/maybe not category on the truth meter.)

You mean there’s a third choice?!

Another short, but telling, link.

An analogy to life under Obama?

Or just an incredibly sweet and funny video?  You decide.

It’s no fun being Cassandra….

Poor Cassandra was cursed by the Gods with the gift of making accurate prophecies that no one would believe.  The disasters she foresaw always came true, but she was helpless to stop people (and nations) from racing towards their doom.  The endings were always so terrible — and Cassandra was herself swept up in them — that she never even got the consolation of a good “I told you so.”

Ever since Obimbo appeared on the scene, we at Bookworm Room have been Cassandras.  We’ve vacillated between trying to decide whether Obama acts as he does through incompetence or malevolence, but we’ve always been clear in our own minds that his approach to the Presidency would be disastrous, both at home and abroad.  One of the things we (and by “we,” I mean my readers and I) predicted was that the Obamessiah, by creating a leadership vacuum in the space America used to fill, would release dangerous forces — just as the Soviet Union’s collapse unleashed long simmering, and quite deadly, regional rivalries in the Balkans.

The headlines now seem to bear out our worst predictions.  Just today, Danny Lemieux forwarded to me a Gateway Pundit post relaying the news that, because Saudi Arabia acted in Bahrain (yes, filling the American leadership vacuum), Iran is now rattling its sabers:

A senior Iranian legislator called on the foreign ministry to show firm reaction against deployment of Saudi military forces in Bahrain and take strong stances and measures in defense of the rights and independence of the Bahraini people.

“The foreign ministry should take a strong position against the dispatch of the Saudi forces to Bahrain” and defend the people’s move and rule over the country, Mostafa Kavakebian said in an open session of the parliament on Tuesday.

God forbid this comes to something, the regional line-up is going to be Israel and Saudi Arabia versus Iran.  What’s impossible for me to know — I simply don’t have the sechel (Yiddish:  smarts) about Middle Eastern allegiances and alliances — is where the other countries, aside from Syria and Lebanon, both already Iranian proxies, will fall when the whole thing blows.  They all hate Israel, but their degrees of loathing for Saudi Arabia and Iran are going to determine which colors they wear in this fight.

I could say “I told you so” but, Cassandra-like, I don’t have the heart to utter those words.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Why I’ve never been interested in drugs

I just finished reading a Zombie post about Owsley Stanley, the man who popularized LSD.  The post reminded me why I’ve never been interested in drug culture.  Back in 1974, when I was an impressionable young teen, my father, a very old-fashioned German man, went back to school to get his Masters in English.  There, he met a true Berkeley free spirit.  She’d hit Berkeley in 1964, right along with the Free Speech Movement, and become completely involved in the counter culture.  By the time she met my Dad, she was withdrawing from that same culture, and her wit, intelligence, and vivacity were why this young Hippie and the middle aged German man became friends.

As I mentioned, this gal was pulling out of the drug culture when we met, and she told me why.  She and her friend got extremely stoned one night and — yes — they discovered the secrets of the universe.  So impressed were they with their mind-expanding wisdom, they dragged out a tape recorder to memorialize it.  The next day, they discovered that they’d recorded an hour long tape filled with long silences, punctuated by one or the other say, “Like, wow, man….”  She said she pretty much stopped smoking after that and I, hearing that story, decided never to start.

The Obama effect *UPDATED OFTEN*

Today, as I was reading the headlines (Middle East decompensating, Qaddafi slaughtering his own people, mass hysteria about Japan’s less-than-likely nuclear disaster, the collapsing American economy), I asked myself, “Why did this all have to happen on the incompetent Obama’s watch?”  I then realized that the question had the answer.

This all is happening because of the incompetent Obama watch.  Without a strong, intelligent hand in the White House, the structures that once held our world together are collapsing.  Even with regard to the earthquake and tsunami, as to which Obama had no control, his lack of leadership in playing down the nuclear hysteria is significant and plays out in the ongoing market collapse.

I called him an empty suit on the very first day he appeared on the political scene.  Although I’ve since added Leftist ideologue and affinity-to-Islam on the negative side of the Obama column, my fundamental premise hasn’t changed much.  He’s an empty suit — lazy, ill-informed, mean-spirited, tyrannical and totally incapable of true leadership.

(John Podhoretz makes the same point, only he does it better.)

UPDATE:  Rich Lowry also has the measure of the man:

Osama bin Laden famously talked of the weak horse and the strong horse. Obama is the show horse. As a U.S. senator, he distinguished himself more by saying things than by passing legislation. In the White House, he has replicated his role as the non-legislating legislator on a grand scale. His successes have been as the leader of the Democrats in Congress, although even here, the word “leader” applies only loosely. He set the broad goals and gave the speeches; otherwise, he let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid run riot.

And here’s Jim Geraghty on Obama’s almost staggering fecklessness.  Read it carefully and remember that this is the person that a credulous, naive American population, guided by a cynical, dishonest media, handed the most powerful job in the world.

Keith Koffler, who bills himself as a totally independent, veteran White House reporter, makes much the same point.

Jennifer Rubin notes, though, that the Kool-Aid drinkers are still swallowing and dreaming about that Obama magic.

Ed Morrissey points out, as I did above, that the great communicator is utterly failing to communicate regarding the nuclear situation in Japan and the nuclear situation at home.

James Taranto too sees Obama’s apathy as an affirmative problem, not just an absence of action.

The nuclear plant problem in Japan — and the problem with ideologues in science *UPDATED*

Mr. Bookworm, New York Times reader, was telling the children that there was a total catastrophe in Japan, with the Japanese and the world exposed to the possibility of massive radiation poisoning.  I calmed the children’s fears by telling them that the paper could be right, but it could be wrong.  First, newspapers sell well on disasters, so it’s in their interest to play them up.  Second, I said, it’s doubtful that most of the reporters have any understanding of nuclear technology, so they’re winging it.  (What I didn’t add is that, almost certainly, the Times’ reporters have as their only “experts” anti-nuclear activists.  There’s nothing wrong with getting the activists’ point of view, but the reporting would be more honest if (a) the Times revealed their biases and (b) the Times talked to some people on the other, non-hysterical side.)  The children, bless their hearts, said “Mom, we know that!”

Anyway, if you want a view from the other side, written in the clearest English I’ve ever seen in a science-based article, read Charlie Martin on the nuclear meltdown and the media.  Whether or not you agree with him, he writes so well, you will certainly understand him.

By the way, this is a great place to tell a story I’ve had in my brain for several days.  I have to digress a teeny bit to set the story up, so please bear with me.

I own a Kindle.  I love the convenience (no more suitcases full of paperbacks when I travel), but I find the book pricing off-putting.  With the choice of free books at the library, or cheap books at Goodwill, I’m not thrilled about spending $10.00 on a book.  What makes it worse in my mind is that, while hardback books are marked down about 40-50% (hence the $10 or $12 Kindle pricing), paperback books are priced down only about 5%.  I’m too cheap to buy a full-priced paperback at the best of times (preferring to gamble that I’ll find something I like at Goodwill or the library), so I’m certainly not going to buy the same book for a mere 5% discount.

So I’ve got a Kindle, but I’m unwilling to buy the books.  The answer is to get the free books that show up on Kindle.  Sometimes, there are real finds there.  For example, if a reputable author is publishing the most recent book in a long-running series, the publishers will put out the first book for free, as a loss leader, to entice people.  That works for me and I have been enticed.  There are also free classics (or low priced, 99 cent, classics).  There are a lot of books that are pure garbage and are free because no one will or should pay any other price.  And there are books that see a publisher just trying to get titles out there and gin up some interest.

That last e-publishing approach is how I ended up with a free copy of Sherry Seethaler’s Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort through the Noise around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies. The publisher’s blurb promises that the book will help savvy news consumers understand the science in the news:

Every day, there’s a new scientific or health controversy. And every day, it seems as if there’s a new study that contradicts what you heard yesterday. What’s really going on? Who’s telling the truth? Who’s faking it? What do scientists actually know—and what don’t they know? This book will help you cut through the confusion and make sense of it all—even if you’ve never taken a science class! Leading science educator and journalist Dr. Sherry Seethaler reveals how science and health research really work…how to put scientific claims in context and understand the real tradeoffs involved…tell quality research from junk science…discover when someone’s deliberately trying to fool you…and find more information you can trust! Nobody knows what new controversy will erupt tomorrow. But one thing’s for certain: With this book, you’ll know how to figure out the real deal—and make smarter decisions for yourself and your family!

Watch the news, and you’ll be overwhelmed by snippets of badly presented science: information that’s incomplete, confusing, contradictory, out-of-context, wrong, or flat-out dishonest. Defend yourself! Dr. Sherry Seethaler gives you a powerful arsenal of tools for making sense of science. You’ll learn how to think more sensibly about everything from mad cow disease to global warming–and how to make better science-related decisions in both your personal life and as a citizen.

You’ll begin by understanding how science really works and progresses, and why scientists sometimes disagree. Seethaler helps you assess the possible biases of those who make scientific claims in the media, and place scientific issues in appropriate context, so you can intelligently assess tradeoffs. You’ll learn how to determine whether a new study is really meaningful; uncover the difference between cause and coincidence; figure out which statistics mean something, and which don’t.

Seethaler reveals the tricks self-interested players use to mislead and confuse you, and points you to sources of information you can actually rely upon. Her many examples range from genetic engineering of crops to drug treatments for depression…but the techniques she teaches you will be invaluable in understanding any scientific controversy, in any area of science or health.

^ Potions, plots, and personalities: How science progresses, and why scientists sometimes disagree
^ Is it “cause” or merely coincidence? How to tell compelling evidence from a “good story”
^ There are always tradeoffs: How to put science and health claims in context, and understand their real implications
^ All the tricks experts use to fool you, exposed! How to recognize lies, “truthiness,” or pseudo-expertise

At first, the book seemed to live up to its promises.  Seethaler explained that it was entirely legitimate for scientists to disagree, because science is not as black-and-white as elementary, middle and high schools imply.  Different techniques, different equipment, and different starting hypotheses can all result in differing outcomes that are open to legitimate dispute.  Seethaler explains that, quite often, conventional wisdom has proven to be plain wrong.  The nature of hypotheses is that they are tested, and then tested again, especially as new information and technology come along.

Seethaler also talks about modeling.  The way in which a scientist sets up a model — the parameters he chooses, the information he enters, and the calculations he applies — may dramatically affect the conclusions he reaches.

In light of all these variables, Seethaler acknowledges that, as she says, “scientific revolutions really happen.”  Conventional wisdom frequently gets turned on its head.  Few things are fixed in the world of true science.  What’s important, she says, is that “disputes are not a sign of science gone wrong.”  Instead, they represent scientists dealing with all of the problems, and variables, and information, and scientific development described above.  This can mean, Seethaler writes, that one person, one outlier, can turn conventional wisdom on its head.

After all this, you’d think, wouldn’t you, that Seethaler would carry these conclusions through to the subject of anthropogenic global warming, right?  Oh, so wrong.  Turning her back on everything she wrote in the preceding chapters, Seethaler has this to say on global warming, in the context of a warning the newspapers like to play up conflict, but don’t really understand scientific methodology:

Another problem is what sociologist Christopher Tourmey referred to as pseudo-symmetry of scientific authority — the media sometimes presents controversy as if scientists are evenly divided bewteen two points of view, when one of the points of view is held by a large majority of the scientific community.  For example, until recently, the media often gave equal time and space to the arguments for and against humans as the cause of global climate change.  Surveys of individual climate scientists have indicated that there is discord among scientists on the issue, but that the majority of scientists agree that humans are altering global climate.  One anlaysis of a decade of research papers on global climate change found no papers that disputed human impacts on global climate.  Also, all but one of the major scientific organizations in the United States whose members have expertise relevant to global climate change, more than a dozen organizations in all, have issued statements acknowledging that human activities are altering the earth’s climate.  The American Association of Petroleum Geologists dissents.  Therefore, there is a general consensus within the scientific community that humans are causing global climate change.  While it is legitimate to explore the arguments agianst the consensus position on global climate change, it is misleading for the media to present the issue so as to give the impression that the scientific community is evenly divided on the matter.

Have you read any media in the last ten years that “gave equal time and space to the arguments for and against humans as the cause of global climate change?”  I haven’t.  With the exception of Fox, the media has monolithically climbed aboard the AGW bandwagon, and ignored or discredited any contrary voices.

Also, considering that Seethaler spent pages and pages and pages warning against assuming that science is fixed, explaining how different approaches to models and hypotheses can affect scientific conclusions, and applauding outliers who challenged (correctly) institutional consensus, do you find it as peculiar as I do to have her suddenly announce that AGW is definitely proven and that any voices to the contrary should be ignored?  It also doesn’t seem to have occurred to her that, in this monolithic intellectual climate, the absence of published papers challenging AGW may arise from the fact that the challengers are being barred at the gates.

I deleted Seethaler’s book from my Kindle at this point.  The woman is a foolish ideologue, incapable of practicing what she preaches.  She’s also probably pretty typical of the science writers and “experts” bloviating about the very real nuclear problems in Japan.  That is, there are real problems, and real risks, but never trust an ideologue to be honest with you when it comes to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts.

UPDATE:  Another good example of the media’s gross (and, I suspect, intentional) scientific ignorance.

Statistical help wanted

On Facebook, I linked to Bret Stephens’ article about the slaughter of the Fogel family in Israel (which is behind a pay wall).  In it, Stephens says that we in the West have essentially dehumanized the Palestinians by giving them a free pass for acting on their baser instincts:

I have a feeling that years from now Palestinians will look back and wonder: How did we allow ourselves to become that? If and when that happens—though not until that happens—Palestinians and Israelis will at long last be able to live alongside each other in genuine peace and security.

But I also wonder whether a similar question will ever occur to the Palestinian movement’s legion of fellow travelers in the West. To wit, how did they become so infatuated with a cause that they were willing to ignore its crimes—or, if not quite ignore them, treat them as no more than a function of the supposedly infinitely greater crime of Israeli occupation?

That’s an important question because it forms part of the same pattern in which significant segments of Western opinion cheered Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe and even Pol Pot. The cheering lasted just as long as was required to see the cause through to some iconic moment of triumph, and then it was on to the next struggle. It was left to others to pick up the pieces or take to the boats or die choking in their own blood.

A friend objected to the article on the ground that it made the Palestinians sound murderous, since “some” of them celebrated the death.  She said the vast majority of Palestinians just desire peace.  I responded that one wishes that was so, and pointed to polls from just last year showing that the majority of Palestinians think Jewish deaths are a good thing.  Her comeback, which I’ve edited slightly, went this way:  The majority of Palestinians weren’t celebrating the murders, only some were.  Also, the same poll to which I cited shows that most of the Palestinians oppose violence, but are so frightened of the PA that they feel they cannot criticize it.  She also said a more recent poll said that, while a clear majority of Israelis polled say they want peace, the Palestinians are so misinformed that, when polled, they say that they don’t believe that the Israelis actually want peace.

So if I understand it correctly, she’s saying that Palestinians are lying to pollsters about wanting to kill Israelis because they’re afraid of the PA.  The illogic seems to be to be that, if they’re that scared of the PA, why are they freely admitting that fear to the pollsters?  Either you lie across the board (hate Israelis/love PA), or you don’t lie (want peace/fear PA).   As to the Palestinians’ misunderstandings about Israeli goals, it still doesn’t seem to me to deny their blood-thirstiness.  It just gives them yet another excuse, which is precisely what Stephens was bemoaning.

What do you say?  And can you think of a polite way for me to make the points or, perhaps, even better points.

What I could have seen from my house

Someone took this video from a point almost directly opposite the Bay from my house.  Had I been looking out the back window, I might have seen the same thing:

At least I’m getting paid….

Legal work isn’t half as much fun as blogging (and all the interesting stuff I read as part of blogging).  Still, after a year-long drought, I’d be a fool to complain.  As soon as I have time, though, I’ll weigh in here.  Until then, if you’re having a quiet evening at home, feel free to say hello and put something on an Open Thread.