AGW has always smelled of the smoke of the Reichtstag fire, and even now, as the rivets pop out of the bridge they were building and as the girders squeal and bend, the fraudsters are boldy forging ahead anyway as if nothing happened, betting that a combination of inertia, bravado and public confusion will carry them through.
Sometimes, miracles do happen.
To the whistleblower: I salute you. The free people of humanity are in your debt.
No crap. We may never know who it is: someone who's had problems all along and finally hit a breaking point, or a believer(full or semi-) who ran into information they just couldn't ignore while their leaders were 'leading' us into disaster; one or the other would be my guess. In any case, yeah, we owe them.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Quote of the day
Brought to us by Keith in comments:
"So AGW was Mann made"
I wish he knew where he read it so we could give credit where due
"So AGW was Mann made"
I wish he knew where he read it so we could give credit where due
Steyn's take on the corrupted peer-review process
The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it's that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the "peer-review" process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse, the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The "science" of the CRU dominates the "science" behind the UN IPCC, which dominates the "science" behind the Congressional cap-&-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it's President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the Prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet. But don't worry, it's all "peer-reviewed".
Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review". When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus", Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor", and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."
So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted". When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr Jones assured Dr Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in The Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review", climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the "peer-reviewed" "consensus". And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr and Andrew Revkin of The New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.
Somehow, you just knew there were more of Obama's people
involved in the climate fakery mess:
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
...
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”
Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
Wonderful, isn't it? And, yet again, there's more!
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
That is a guess; wouldn't surprise me, considering Holdren.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Which sounds disturbingly like the "Until it's considered an actual human, you can 'abort' it at any time" argument from the real screwballs. Which Holdren seems to be.
Pointed to by Sondra
You haven’t heard it from America’s mainstream media yet – even Fox News hasn’t covered it – but the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John P. Holdren, is a key player in the Climategate e-mails flap, which is shaping up as the biggest scandal in the history of modern science.
...
But the Canada Free Press this week revealed that the former Harvard professor and Al Gore global warming adviser features prominently in the thousands of e-mails and other files made public after the hacking last week of a computer server used by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
The most embarrassing item for the Obama Administration may be a 2003 exchange between Holdren and TCSDaily.com editor-in-chief Nick Schulz. Schulz challenged Holdren on whether downplaying the significance of the Medieval Warm Period required “what lawyers call the burden of proof.”
Holdren’s retort contained a remarkable assertion coming from a scientist: “In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”
Canada Free Press columnist and Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball says of the correspondence with Schulz that Holdren’s “entire defense and position devolves to a political position.”
Wonderful, isn't it? And, yet again, there's more!
The CRU documents also find Holdren disparaging solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, contrarians regarding surface temperatures over the past millennium, who were colleagues of Holdren at Harvard, and Ball wonders if Holdren may have intimidated the two scientists before they “suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray,” as Ball describes it.
That is a guess; wouldn't surprise me, considering Holdren.
Not long before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion-on-demand throughout America, Holdren co-authored “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” which seems to argue that even years after birth a baby is not yet a human being.
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth,” claims the book’s “Population Limitation” section, “and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
Which sounds disturbingly like the "Until it's considered an actual human, you can 'abort' it at any time" argument from the real screwballs. Which Holdren seems to be.
Pointed to by Sondra
Friday, November 27, 2009
I think this has to be one of the more damning quotes
from the CRU e-mails:
What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
What appears to be the case is that these scientists did not set out to mislead the world so much as try to force data which did not correspond to their ideology of anthropogenic global warming to support that ideology. For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. (My emphasis)
In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.
Read the whole piece, it's very good. And I do have to point out: they may not have set out to mislead the world, but that's damn well what they did. Even to the point of violating law to prevent non-believers from seeing their data.Honduras wins,
and the commies and socialists lose. And another one's under the bus[/Queen riff].
By hanging Zelaya out to dry -- leaving him powerless and languishing in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, possibly facing trial for illegally seeking re-election -- the administration saves face in Honduras and ultimately does the right thing. The Honduran Congress will vote on Dec. 2, after the next president has been elected, whether to reinstate Zelaya as a lame duck, and with the election already decided, they won't be under any pressure to do so and reverse their earlier decision.
So all's well that ends well. But even so, as we recently opined, a happy ending is still no excuse for Obama's half-cocked diplomacy, and no number of low bows to Honduras's next president will make up for the damage he has caused there. Again, his legendary inexperience in world matters shows.
Hey, Zelaya, you were stupid enough to trust another little socialist like yourself, and this is the price.
I wonder when the striped-pants clowns at the State Department will get around to letting Honduran officials have visas again?
By hanging Zelaya out to dry -- leaving him powerless and languishing in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, possibly facing trial for illegally seeking re-election -- the administration saves face in Honduras and ultimately does the right thing. The Honduran Congress will vote on Dec. 2, after the next president has been elected, whether to reinstate Zelaya as a lame duck, and with the election already decided, they won't be under any pressure to do so and reverse their earlier decision.
So all's well that ends well. But even so, as we recently opined, a happy ending is still no excuse for Obama's half-cocked diplomacy, and no number of low bows to Honduras's next president will make up for the damage he has caused there. Again, his legendary inexperience in world matters shows.
Hey, Zelaya, you were stupid enough to trust another little socialist like yourself, and this is the price.
I wonder when the striped-pants clowns at the State Department will get around to letting Honduran officials have visas again?
And here in the US, we have wilfull blindness to the facts revealed
in the ECU documents:
Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.
"I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real," said Ms. Browner, whom President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming.
And you want a blunt demonstration of "We'll do it because we want to, screw the facts",
Ms. Browner said the only people who still doubt global warming is happening and that humans are to blame are "a very small group of people who continue to say this isn't a real problem, that we don't need to do anything."
'A very small group' of one hell of a lot of scientists who've been arguing against this crap for years, but they're not saying the right things so they're 'deniers' and not to be listened to.
Especially by power-hungry politicians.
She also said the e-mails are only trickling out, and that the entire set hasn't been released.
Uh, you mean the whole damn set that's been available online for a while? Why, Ms. Browner, a flat-out lie?(another, that is)
Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn't have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is occurring and is most likely being pushed by human actions.
Hey, her boss is planning to shed the Obama Light on Copenhagen to bring healing to the world; we expect a clown bureaucrat with desire for authority to say anything else?
Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.
"I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real," said Ms. Browner, whom President Obama has tapped as his chief of policy on global warming.
And you want a blunt demonstration of "We'll do it because we want to, screw the facts",
Ms. Browner said the only people who still doubt global warming is happening and that humans are to blame are "a very small group of people who continue to say this isn't a real problem, that we don't need to do anything."
'A very small group' of one hell of a lot of scientists who've been arguing against this crap for years, but they're not saying the right things so they're 'deniers' and not to be listened to.
Especially by power-hungry politicians.
She also said the e-mails are only trickling out, and that the entire set hasn't been released.
Uh, you mean the whole damn set that's been available online for a while? Why, Ms. Browner, a flat-out lie?(another, that is)
Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn't have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is occurring and is most likely being pushed by human actions.
Hey, her boss is planning to shed the Obama Light on Copenhagen to bring healing to the world; we expect a clown bureaucrat with desire for authority to say anything else?
I think Hans Christian would approve
Take Rudd. Our vain emperor was told by activists the world was warming, thanks to man’s gases, and they could make for him a cause so fine that he would seem the saviour of the world.
They gave him graphs they said showed this heating, and warned that only stupid “deniers” would see in them a cooling trend since 2001.
Rudd was too afraid to admit he actually saw that cooling in the satellite data and so dressed himself instead in the holy robes of a planet saviour - robes he’ll now pay for with a new emissions tax even he says will raise at least $114 billion by 2020.
His ministers, equally scared to seem stupid or bad, agreed his robes were fantastic. And journalists cheered.
Oh, there were doubts, but who in that crowd dared speak? Yet in emails leaked last weekend we find that even the men who’d sold our emperor his new threads fretted that we’d find out they’d sold Rudd a dud.
Kevin Trenberth, who co-wrote two United Nations IPCC reports in which Rudd had found his cause, admitted: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment.”
What? The boy had spoken. The spell was broken. Only there’s a problem with this retelling. Our emperor Rudd is still strutting starkers, crying that this cooling world is warming, and he, first among all leaders, must save it.
Or I could have told this tale with Malcolm Turnbull as the emperor, since he bought this same cause from the same shysters, and never once checked why his bared backside felt so windy.
And one of the consequences,
ANGRY resignations from the Shadow Cabinet last night propelled Malcolm Turnbull closer to a leadership showdown which opponents to an ETS could ensure he loses.
Four MPs quit the front bench so they could fight the amendments to legislation creating an Emissions Trading Scheme negotiated with the Government by Mr Turnbull and senior colleagues.
A lot of these people were unhappy with the scheme before; for it to be shoved forward now, after these revelations and without review, just took it over the edge.
They gave him graphs they said showed this heating, and warned that only stupid “deniers” would see in them a cooling trend since 2001.
Rudd was too afraid to admit he actually saw that cooling in the satellite data and so dressed himself instead in the holy robes of a planet saviour - robes he’ll now pay for with a new emissions tax even he says will raise at least $114 billion by 2020.
His ministers, equally scared to seem stupid or bad, agreed his robes were fantastic. And journalists cheered.
Oh, there were doubts, but who in that crowd dared speak? Yet in emails leaked last weekend we find that even the men who’d sold our emperor his new threads fretted that we’d find out they’d sold Rudd a dud.
Kevin Trenberth, who co-wrote two United Nations IPCC reports in which Rudd had found his cause, admitted: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment.”
What? The boy had spoken. The spell was broken. Only there’s a problem with this retelling. Our emperor Rudd is still strutting starkers, crying that this cooling world is warming, and he, first among all leaders, must save it.
Or I could have told this tale with Malcolm Turnbull as the emperor, since he bought this same cause from the same shysters, and never once checked why his bared backside felt so windy.
And one of the consequences,
ANGRY resignations from the Shadow Cabinet last night propelled Malcolm Turnbull closer to a leadership showdown which opponents to an ETS could ensure he loses.
Four MPs quit the front bench so they could fight the amendments to legislation creating an Emissions Trading Scheme negotiated with the Government by Mr Turnbull and senior colleagues.
A lot of these people were unhappy with the scheme before; for it to be shoved forward now, after these revelations and without review, just took it over the edge.
Why a 'journalist' won't cover Climaquiddick
We make decisions every day [based] on our own opinions about what we think are the main stories. And what we leave out is often as important as what we put in, and that was my judgement of this issue..
That was my assessment of whether this was actually of any significance or not, and I decided that it wasn’t and we wouldn’t spend time on it. It suits the conspiracy theorists beautifully...
It was a small, even a tiny fragment of a sidebar of a secondary issue to the edge of the periphery of something people were talking about other than the main game. That’s how I saw it.
It suits the “conspiracy theorists beautifully”. In other words, it suits the sceptics - and that must not be allowed to happen.
Unprofessional doesn’t quite cover it. Scandalous is much closer.
From Andrew Bolt
Two important things to list, and one piece of idiocy
The important things are on the Climaquiddick mess going on. First, A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data
...
Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)
More anti-scientific hiding of data because they feared someone finding conflicting results, and they couldn't have that, now could they?
Second,
In 1999, I had a stroke of luck. I asked one of the IPCC officials for the data from which one of their maps was compiled, and I received it. I wrote a paper analyzing the results, and submitted it to Geophysical Research Letters. They just sat on it. I instead published it on John Daly’s website. Today, it is still the only paper recognized by Google on “Regional Temperature Change.”
I now know my paper was not critical enough, since we have proof that the basic data and its processing is far more dubious than I had envisaged.
I tried to update my paper and resubmit it. Nothing doing. Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.
We keep hearing about the value of peer-reviewed science, which is absolutely true; what the defenders of these clowns don't mention is that when the peer-review people don't allow people with conflicting information or views t be published then the peer-review process isn't worth crap. The last line of this piece, which has to be driving the CRU people(and a whole lot of others) up the walls,
I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.
Add 'unfettered political and news discussion' to the list, which is why newspapers and most major media are falling down a hole; they publish only the news they want you to hear, or how they want you to hear it, and people are tired of it.
WHich brings me to the idiocy; Insty posts this on who a lefty wants to save us, and lists some of the reasons that's a very bad idea. No link to the post in question; I'll just note that when one of the things in it is that 'there needs to be a liberal takeover of the Democrat party', well... Note that if classical liberals DID take it over, this lady would have screaming fits.
...
Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)
More anti-scientific hiding of data because they feared someone finding conflicting results, and they couldn't have that, now could they?
Second,
In 1999, I had a stroke of luck. I asked one of the IPCC officials for the data from which one of their maps was compiled, and I received it. I wrote a paper analyzing the results, and submitted it to Geophysical Research Letters. They just sat on it. I instead published it on John Daly’s website. Today, it is still the only paper recognized by Google on “Regional Temperature Change.”
I now know my paper was not critical enough, since we have proof that the basic data and its processing is far more dubious than I had envisaged.
I tried to update my paper and resubmit it. Nothing doing. Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.
We keep hearing about the value of peer-reviewed science, which is absolutely true; what the defenders of these clowns don't mention is that when the peer-review people don't allow people with conflicting information or views t be published then the peer-review process isn't worth crap. The last line of this piece, which has to be driving the CRU people(and a whole lot of others) up the walls,
I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.
Add 'unfettered political and news discussion' to the list, which is why newspapers and most major media are falling down a hole; they publish only the news they want you to hear, or how they want you to hear it, and people are tired of it.
WHich brings me to the idiocy; Insty posts this on who a lefty wants to save us, and lists some of the reasons that's a very bad idea. No link to the post in question; I'll just note that when one of the things in it is that 'there needs to be a liberal takeover of the Democrat party', well... Note that if classical liberals DID take it over, this lady would have screaming fits.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
It should be noted that one of the people dancing in the blood
of the Fort Hood wounded and dead is John Rosenthal. Who is a God-cursed liar.
Yes, my language is degrading, and this isn't a good day for that. I plead being sick to death of these parasites.
Yes, my language is degrading, and this isn't a good day for that. I plead being sick to death of these parasites.
Is it something trained into high-ranking officers, or
does the rank somehow attract people who like to make up "See, I'm DOING SOMETHING!!" idiot rules?
Soldiers assigned to Fort Hood will have to register their personal firearms with the director of emergency services, he added. Fort Hood is home to some 50,000 active-duty soldiers and 18,000 of the soldiers' family members.
Hell, he even admits what good this is:
But, Cone said, had the changes been in place on November 5, they might not have been enough.
"I don't think necessarily they would have had an effect on this event," he said.
Absolute effing bullcrap.
But wait! There's MORE!!
A 24-hour "behavioral health hot line" is available, and a surveillance program "to identify and monitor areas of concern" will be started soon, he said.
"These findings may lead to targeted interventions for certain populations as we address these issues," Braverman said.
Plans call for construction of an 82,000-square-foot facility in which behavioral health facilities would be consolidated, Braverman said.
Soldiers in need of care can also make appointments with their primary care providers, he said.
The objective, Braverman said, is "to restore trust and confidence in Army medicine."
Well, I've got news for you, guy; the problem was a fucking jihadi in your midst that nobody wanted to DO anything about because they were afraid of having their career ruined by you effing tolerance junkies. So until you bastards do something to make it crystal-clear that reporting a muslim working his way up to mass murder won't cause the reporting party to be screwed over YOU'RE ARRANGING THE EFFING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC.
Oh, and apparently it hasn't occurred to you geniuses that somebody who obtains a weapon for illegal purposes just- just maybe, y'know?- might not register it with you?
I don't know what to worry about the most anymore; the open enemy the son is facing, or the idiots in uniform with a lot of rank on their shoulders and the politicians they suck up to.
Despite the availability of resources, many soldiers have expressed reluctance to seek mental health care, fearing that doing so would adversely affect their careers.
"There is a perception of stigma," Cone said.
But Braverman said treatment need not hinder anyone's career.
"If you are seen in our system, while there's information in the medical records, that's not allowed to be used for any determination of security levels or future assignments," he said.
Well, people finding out that the jihadi-in-training turned some of his patients in for 'war crimes' didn't exactly help, now did it?(Note to Braverman: KEEP THE DAMNED ENEMY FROM TREATING OUR TROOPS, YOU JACKASS.)
Damn. Just effing dammit.
Soldiers assigned to Fort Hood will have to register their personal firearms with the director of emergency services, he added. Fort Hood is home to some 50,000 active-duty soldiers and 18,000 of the soldiers' family members.
Hell, he even admits what good this is:
But, Cone said, had the changes been in place on November 5, they might not have been enough.
"I don't think necessarily they would have had an effect on this event," he said.
Absolute effing bullcrap.
But wait! There's MORE!!
A 24-hour "behavioral health hot line" is available, and a surveillance program "to identify and monitor areas of concern" will be started soon, he said.
"These findings may lead to targeted interventions for certain populations as we address these issues," Braverman said.
Plans call for construction of an 82,000-square-foot facility in which behavioral health facilities would be consolidated, Braverman said.
Soldiers in need of care can also make appointments with their primary care providers, he said.
The objective, Braverman said, is "to restore trust and confidence in Army medicine."
Well, I've got news for you, guy; the problem was a fucking jihadi in your midst that nobody wanted to DO anything about because they were afraid of having their career ruined by you effing tolerance junkies. So until you bastards do something to make it crystal-clear that reporting a muslim working his way up to mass murder won't cause the reporting party to be screwed over YOU'RE ARRANGING THE EFFING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC.
Oh, and apparently it hasn't occurred to you geniuses that somebody who obtains a weapon for illegal purposes just- just maybe, y'know?- might not register it with you?
I don't know what to worry about the most anymore; the open enemy the son is facing, or the idiots in uniform with a lot of rank on their shoulders and the politicians they suck up to.
Despite the availability of resources, many soldiers have expressed reluctance to seek mental health care, fearing that doing so would adversely affect their careers.
"There is a perception of stigma," Cone said.
But Braverman said treatment need not hinder anyone's career.
"If you are seen in our system, while there's information in the medical records, that's not allowed to be used for any determination of security levels or future assignments," he said.
Well, people finding out that the jihadi-in-training turned some of his patients in for 'war crimes' didn't exactly help, now did it?(Note to Braverman: KEEP THE DAMNED ENEMY FROM TREATING OUR TROOPS, YOU JACKASS.)
Damn. Just effing dammit.
The more I think about this idiocy, the madder I get
First at Nanny Bloomberg for the idiocy coming about in the first place(Hey, NYEffin'C, hope you're happy); second is the fucking moron who doesn't say "Screw the law" and give the food to the hungry.
Mr. Bastile, you're the fucking moron referred to; I truly hope you read this. And Bloomberg, you deserve to be dragged from that office and treated to tar and feathers.
Added: I just keep getting more pissed. They've got hungry people asking for food, and they threw chicken away? Because of fucking TRANS-FATS? "Yes, I know you're starving, but Nanny Bloomberg doesn't allow food with trans-fats so you'll have to wait until something he approves of comes along.
What's that? Oh, he's stuffing on steak and shrimp or something. You don't expect him to live by the rules Nanny sets for everyone else, do you?"
Damn you, Bloomberg. And damn you Bastile, and any other de-balled little clown who'd throw away food because it's not 'healthy' enough.
Mr. Bastile, you're the fucking moron referred to; I truly hope you read this. And Bloomberg, you deserve to be dragged from that office and treated to tar and feathers.
Added: I just keep getting more pissed. They've got hungry people asking for food, and they threw chicken away? Because of fucking TRANS-FATS? "Yes, I know you're starving, but Nanny Bloomberg doesn't allow food with trans-fats so you'll have to wait until something he approves of comes along.
What's that? Oh, he's stuffing on steak and shrimp or something. You don't expect him to live by the rules Nanny sets for everyone else, do you?"
Damn you, Bloomberg. And damn you Bastile, and any other de-balled little clown who'd throw away food because it's not 'healthy' enough.
While I'm on the subject of crookedness,
The U.S. Senate recently released its long-awaited proposal for a government-run hostile takeover of the entire U.S. health care system. Predictably, it includes a barrage of higher taxes to pay for the bill’s immense price tag. [...]
All these increases, combined with state and local income taxes, would raise the average top marginal rate in the U.S. to over 52 percent. This would be higher than traditionally high-tax countries such as Italy, Spain, and even France. [...]
I'm going to note four:
•An excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,[2]
•An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3]
•A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7]
•An increase in the estate tax,[24]
If Harry Reid had any honor, any sense of shame, he'd be hiding under a rock mumbling "Forgive me" for this crap. You'll note that the current Death Tax just isn't enough for them: they truly believe that just because you die they have some right to tax you AGAIN on everything you own. And it's not enough to be stuck in a wheelchair, or be diabetic; they want to tax you on the things you need to get around and stay alive.
That the Senate rolled over to debate this piece of crap is bad enough(as Dick says, where's a torch?) If they pass this horrible piece of reeking garbage, they ought to be dragged out of those taxpayer-supplied offices, taken to the town square and flogged. Or hanged. Maybe both.
Oh, and how about this message to Louisiana and Sen. Landrieu(Political Whore-LA)?
I regret to inform you that as the result of your accepting what’s widely seen as a financial offer to throw your vote on healthcare — and notwithstanding your unusual logic about the economic plight of your constituents — should this measure pass the Senate and eventually be signed into law, I will probably never again visit New Orleans. I don’t know your motives nor are they important; it’s that appearance of impropriety thing.
In fact, I might go out of my away to avoid Louisiana entirely.
Based on the figures I cited from the New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation for 2009, (PDF) those seven million-plus annual tourists spend an average of $700. A former employer once sent a half dozen of us there for four days apiece.
So. If we divide these recent legislative earnings by $700, and then assume a local average gross profit margin from food, lodging, and entertainment of say 50%, we find that 1,000,000 tourists could, if they adopt this thinking, actually completely negate Louisiana’s short-term net proceeds from whatever it was that somehow uniquely sent $300,000,000 to your state.
Over two years that number could wipe your state’s windfall from the books and replace it with a comparable loss.
Then we could do this for either your entire term, year by year, or forever. Year by year.
All these increases, combined with state and local income taxes, would raise the average top marginal rate in the U.S. to over 52 percent. This would be higher than traditionally high-tax countries such as Italy, Spain, and even France. [...]
I'm going to note four:
•An excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,[2]
•An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3]
•A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7]
•An increase in the estate tax,[24]
If Harry Reid had any honor, any sense of shame, he'd be hiding under a rock mumbling "Forgive me" for this crap. You'll note that the current Death Tax just isn't enough for them: they truly believe that just because you die they have some right to tax you AGAIN on everything you own. And it's not enough to be stuck in a wheelchair, or be diabetic; they want to tax you on the things you need to get around and stay alive.
That the Senate rolled over to debate this piece of crap is bad enough(as Dick says, where's a torch?) If they pass this horrible piece of reeking garbage, they ought to be dragged out of those taxpayer-supplied offices, taken to the town square and flogged. Or hanged. Maybe both.
Oh, and how about this message to Louisiana and Sen. Landrieu(Political Whore-LA)?
I regret to inform you that as the result of your accepting what’s widely seen as a financial offer to throw your vote on healthcare — and notwithstanding your unusual logic about the economic plight of your constituents — should this measure pass the Senate and eventually be signed into law, I will probably never again visit New Orleans. I don’t know your motives nor are they important; it’s that appearance of impropriety thing.
In fact, I might go out of my away to avoid Louisiana entirely.
Based on the figures I cited from the New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation for 2009, (PDF) those seven million-plus annual tourists spend an average of $700. A former employer once sent a half dozen of us there for four days apiece.
So. If we divide these recent legislative earnings by $700, and then assume a local average gross profit margin from food, lodging, and entertainment of say 50%, we find that 1,000,000 tourists could, if they adopt this thinking, actually completely negate Louisiana’s short-term net proceeds from whatever it was that somehow uniquely sent $300,000,000 to your state.
Over two years that number could wipe your state’s windfall from the books and replace it with a comparable loss.
Then we could do this for either your entire term, year by year, or forever. Year by year.
"We had good reason to make adjustments; no
you can't see the data!"
Reeling from claims that it has massaged data to show a 150 year warming trend where there isn't one, NIWA's chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report, issued a news release stating adjustments had been made to compensate for changes in sensor locations over the years.
While such an adjustment is valid, it needs to be fully explained so other scientists can test the reasonableness of the adjustment.
Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.
Reeling from claims that it has massaged data to show a 150 year warming trend where there isn't one, NIWA's chief climate scientist David Wratt, an IPCC vice-chair on the 2007 AR4 report, issued a news release stating adjustments had been made to compensate for changes in sensor locations over the years.
While such an adjustment is valid, it needs to be fully explained so other scientists can test the reasonableness of the adjustment.
Wratt is refusing to release data his organisation claims to have justifying adjustments on other weather stations, meaning the science cannot be reviewed. However, he has released information relating to Wellington temperature readings, and they make for interesting reading.
Watts Up With That has a statement
from the American Meteorological Society on the CRU documents. I'm going to quote one part:
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
Except we now have proof that the 'peer-reviewed' literature wasn't really; it was screwed with to give the results the Believers wanted. Which means the AMS statement is at least in part based on faked data and slanted reviews. But they either don't have the guts to say "This screws up our previous understanding and we're going to have to go back over things", or it's a case of "We Believe, and this evidence isn't going to change that. We want to change your life to deal with the Global Warming we Believe in, and we're not budging on that."
I'm also borrowing this chart from another of his posts:
The way the scientific method is supposed to work. Please note the blocks 'Repeat(by self) Reproduce(by others) and what's supposed to happen if 'Inconsistent with Hypothesis'.
From the post:
"One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment. From Rand and Wilensky 2006
CRU’s decision to withhold data and code from public inspection is not only against the scientific method, given the impact their work has on governmental policies and taxpayer funded programs, it is, in my opinion, unethical. – Anthony Watts"
and in a guest post by Willis Eschenbach(you really need to read it all):
People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.
This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
Except we now have proof that the 'peer-reviewed' literature wasn't really; it was screwed with to give the results the Believers wanted. Which means the AMS statement is at least in part based on faked data and slanted reviews. But they either don't have the guts to say "This screws up our previous understanding and we're going to have to go back over things", or it's a case of "We Believe, and this evidence isn't going to change that. We want to change your life to deal with the Global Warming we Believe in, and we're not budging on that."
I'm also borrowing this chart from another of his posts:
The way the scientific method is supposed to work. Please note the blocks 'Repeat(by self) Reproduce(by others) and what's supposed to happen if 'Inconsistent with Hypothesis'.From the post:
"One of the foundational components of the scientific method is the idea of reproducibility (Popper 1959). In order for an experiment to be considered valid it must be replicated. This process begins with the scientists who originally performed the experiment publishing the details of the experiment. This description of the experiment is then read by another group of scientists who carry out the experiment, and ascertain whether the results of the new experiment are similar to the original experiment. If the results are similar enough then the experiment has been replicated. This process validates the fact that the experiment was not dependent on local conditions, and that the written description of the experiment satisfactorily records the knowledge gained through the experiment. From Rand and Wilensky 2006
CRU’s decision to withhold data and code from public inspection is not only against the scientific method, given the impact their work has on governmental policies and taxpayer funded programs, it is, in my opinion, unethical. – Anthony Watts"
and in a guest post by Willis Eschenbach(you really need to read it all):
People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.
Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.
This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.
The crookedness that just keeps giving,
whether the True Believers like it or not:
And, now NASA is being dragged into the scandal.
And from New Zealand,
The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre
...
What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.
We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace..
And, now NASA is being dragged into the scandal.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed notices of intent today against NASA for refusing to release climate documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The American Spectator reported:
Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
And from New Zealand,
The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre
...
What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.
About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.
We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace..
So Obama has a state dinner in a tent, AND invites felons,
but House Minority Leader John A. Boehner won’t be there; he’s on Thanksgiving break and home in Ohio. His deputy, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, also didn’t get an invitation to the dinner.
The president didn’t invite his 2008 rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, even though Mr. Obama the candidate pledged a post-partisan presidency.
Isn't that wonderful? But he could invite, among others,
The Obama White House invited convicted felon and HuffPo contributor Robert Creamer to the first State Dinner last night in Washington DC.
The president didn’t invite his 2008 rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, even though Mr. Obama the candidate pledged a post-partisan presidency.
Isn't that wonderful? But he could invite, among others,
The Obama White House invited convicted felon and HuffPo contributor Robert Creamer to the first State Dinner last night in Washington DC.
ABC7 reported in 2006 on his prison sentence:
The husband of an Illinois congresswoman was sentenced to five months in prison Wednesday. Robert Creamer is married to US Representative Jan Schakowsky. He was convicted on charges of writing bad checks and tax evasion.
Hey, but he worked for 'social justice', and worked for the Obama campaign, so I guess the felonies don't count, huh?County Counselor Patricia Redington insisted it had nothing to do with politics,
influence or pressure from any official.
“These charges are like the 90,000 other charges we file each year,” she said.
Uh huh. Which is why it only took 90 frikkin' days for them to get around to it? And on the day before Thanksgiving?(can you say "Maybe they'll forget all this by Monday?")
And all misdemeanors, of course. AND they charge the reporter because ...he failed to obey repeated commands “to leave the site of an ongoing disturbance.” Which, considering the state of Missouri authorities like Patricia Redington, probably means "You kept filming and that didn't allow us to ignore this, so we're going to make trouble for you!"
And the paper either didn't get the story right, or deliberately published some bad info:
The paper incorrectly identifies Gladney:
No – good grief, he was a VENDOR. He was SELLING MERCH AND GIVING AWAY FLAGS. Is this an attempt to invalidate the offense caused him by identifying him as part of a movement that the state media has ridiculed since spring or is this an honest, incompetent error?
“These charges are like the 90,000 other charges we file each year,” she said.
Uh huh. Which is why it only took 90 frikkin' days for them to get around to it? And on the day before Thanksgiving?(can you say "Maybe they'll forget all this by Monday?")
And all misdemeanors, of course. AND they charge the reporter because ...he failed to obey repeated commands “to leave the site of an ongoing disturbance.” Which, considering the state of Missouri authorities like Patricia Redington, probably means "You kept filming and that didn't allow us to ignore this, so we're going to make trouble for you!"
And the paper either didn't get the story right, or deliberately published some bad info:
The paper incorrectly identifies Gladney:
Elston McCowan, 47, of St. Louis, and Perry Molens, 50, of De Soto, each were charged with assaulting a person and interfering with police. They are accused of scuffling with and injuring Kenneth Gladney, a demonstrator with the Tea Party, a group generally opposed to Democrats’ universal health care proposals.
No – good grief, he was a VENDOR. He was SELLING MERCH AND GIVING AWAY FLAGS. Is this an attempt to invalidate the offense caused him by identifying him as part of a movement that the state media has ridiculed since spring or is this an honest, incompetent error?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Ah yes, the trustworthy BBC
The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.
...
The emails apparently show researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.
In his blog for BBC Look North, Hudson added: 'The emails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.'
He also publishes a link to the messages which global warming sceptics claim provide 'smoking gun' evidence that some scientist talked about manipulated data to support the theory that climate change is being caused by mankind.
Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long...
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.
...
The emails apparently show researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.
In his blog for BBC Look North, Hudson added: 'The emails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.'
He also publishes a link to the messages which global warming sceptics claim provide 'smoking gun' evidence that some scientist talked about manipulated data to support the theory that climate change is being caused by mankind.
Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long...
Speaking of crapweasels, in this case media variety,
From Founding Bloggers,
A few minutes ago, we received the following comment attacking Glenn Reynolds for his observation that “every promise has an expiration date” (Emphasis added in red):
..
Sometimes when we receive a comment or email that contains a personal attack, or unwarranted vulgarity, we run the IP address of the commenter to see where the comment might be coming from.
and from Dan Riehl,
Following up on an Instapundit item about the NY Times telling him to STFU in blog comments elsewhere, I put the IP into my own comment search feature. That IP has been here with the name franglosaxon.
A few minutes ago, we received the following comment attacking Glenn Reynolds for his observation that “every promise has an expiration date” (Emphasis added in red):
..
Sometimes when we receive a comment or email that contains a personal attack, or unwarranted vulgarity, we run the IP address of the commenter to see where the comment might be coming from.
Imagine our surprise when the IP address for the above comment (IP: 170.149.100.10) resolved to the New York Times!
and from Dan Riehl,
Following up on an Instapundit item about the NY Times telling him to STFU in blog comments elsewhere, I put the IP into my own comment search feature. That IP has been here with the name franglosaxon.
Founding bloggers wasn't opening for a bit but you can get the meat of the post here if Founding Bloggers is still over-loaded. It might be fine, now.
Courtesy of Franglosaxon, who tracks to the same IP and seems to have made some truly outlandish comments elsewhere.
Hmmm, sneaky crap from the NYEffin'Times, whoda thunk it?
On Dear Leader's decision to tell us about his decision
next friggin' week instead of now, couple of things bother me. One was the way he announced the other day "When the people hear how the decision was made, they will support it"(close as I can recall, couldn't find the quote right now). Stated like a command. Screw you, politician, you don't order me to support anything.
Second, on radio a few minutes ago, that he decided to announce at a speech at West Point rather than a news conference 'because this venue would allow enough time for full explanation.'
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Despite your mouthpiece Jarrett talking about 'speaking truth to power', YOU are the freaking PRESIDENT, Obama; you can call a press conference and take however the hell long you like to 'explain' it. I have the feeling you want to do it here because you won't face questions at the Point, and can deign to speak to the concerns of the lousy peasants later.
Just ran across this over at Jammie Wearing Fool:
Hmmm, hey numbnuts, some of us have known for a long time what the stakes are in this war and it didn't take us 3 months. Three months during which you had a drive by meeting with the commander on the ground, which was sandwiched in between fund raisers, parties, golf games and jetting off around the globe to apologize for being number 1.
The part that really grinds my gears however is leaked reports say he is going to commit 34,000 troops to Afghanistan. What seems to be lost on all the experts is that the current troop level in Afghanistan is 68,000. A tour of duty is 12 months. If he is promising 34,000 troops over a six month period then that simply works out to the normal rotation of soldiers in and out of theater.
Can anybody provide me with evidence that the 34,000 will be a net increase and not merely normal rotations?
Interesting question; is he going to try to play games with pretending to increase real troop numbers?
Second, on radio a few minutes ago, that he decided to announce at a speech at West Point rather than a news conference 'because this venue would allow enough time for full explanation.'
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Despite your mouthpiece Jarrett talking about 'speaking truth to power', YOU are the freaking PRESIDENT, Obama; you can call a press conference and take however the hell long you like to 'explain' it. I have the feeling you want to do it here because you won't face questions at the Point, and can deign to speak to the concerns of the lousy peasants later.
Just ran across this over at Jammie Wearing Fool:
Hmmm, hey numbnuts, some of us have known for a long time what the stakes are in this war and it didn't take us 3 months. Three months during which you had a drive by meeting with the commander on the ground, which was sandwiched in between fund raisers, parties, golf games and jetting off around the globe to apologize for being number 1.
The part that really grinds my gears however is leaked reports say he is going to commit 34,000 troops to Afghanistan. What seems to be lost on all the experts is that the current troop level in Afghanistan is 68,000. A tour of duty is 12 months. If he is promising 34,000 troops over a six month period then that simply works out to the normal rotation of soldiers in and out of theater.
Can anybody provide me with evidence that the 34,000 will be a net increase and not merely normal rotations?
Interesting question; is he going to try to play games with pretending to increase real troop numbers?
The most recent bow by The Obama brought a story to mind
Early 1900's, the various ambassadors of Europe arrived at the court of the Ottoman Empire to meet with the bigshot, and found a change: a structure had been built across the pathway that was so low, the only way to approach was to go to hands and knees and crawl through.
Various people unhappily got down and crawled through, then came the British Ambassador, a rather stout gentleman. He looked at it, turned around, got on hands and knees and backed through, stood up, then turned around and approached the throne. Thus giving the bigshot a 'bow' he'd never forget, and demonstrating that the Brits wouldn't follow the script.
That's what an ambassador of Britain did; and what do we have? A president who bows to kings, emperors and high Communist Party officials. That's not an advance, folks.
Various people unhappily got down and crawled through, then came the British Ambassador, a rather stout gentleman. He looked at it, turned around, got on hands and knees and backed through, stood up, then turned around and approached the throne. Thus giving the bigshot a 'bow' he'd never forget, and demonstrating that the Brits wouldn't follow the script.
That's what an ambassador of Britain did; and what do we have? A president who bows to kings, emperors and high Communist Party officials. That's not an advance, folks.
So yesterday evening Obama announced that he has 'decided'
what do do about Afghanistan. After only, oh, about three effing months? AND HE WON'T ACTUALLY ANNOUNCE IT FOR ANOTHER EFFING WEEK?
Let's see, along with the insane news about those SEALs, along with the idiot ROE the troops are under in Afghanistan, along with the other shit, I now have the son back in Iraq and, along with a whole bunch of other parents, get to watch these miserable crapweasels play games with the troops lives...
Lampposts, ropes, politicians...
Let's see, along with the insane news about those SEALs, along with the idiot ROE the troops are under in Afghanistan, along with the other shit, I now have the son back in Iraq and, along with a whole bunch of other parents, get to watch these miserable crapweasels play games with the troops lives...
Lampposts, ropes, politicians...
I'll admit I'd like to see almost anyone throw Kirsten Gillibrand
out of that seat; but considering New York, Giuliani is probably the best we could hope for.
Considering the way Gillibrand has thrown gun owners under the train, I'll repeat 'almost ANYONE'; if she'll do that, she'll do anything to anyone to keep her sorry ass in that chair.
Considering the way Gillibrand has thrown gun owners under the train, I'll repeat 'almost ANYONE'; if she'll do that, she'll do anything to anyone to keep her sorry ass in that chair.
Even for a socialist Friend of Ayers like Obama this is an amazing graph
You'd think the idea of having some people who actually know how business works would be helpful, wouldn't you?
Except that might be a stumbling block to 'remaking America' like Pres. B. Hussein Cartman Obama wants to.
Except that might be a stumbling block to 'remaking America' like Pres. B. Hussein Cartman Obama wants to.
To every clown in the major media giving a tender ear to Elliot Spitzer,
where were you when he was flatly breaking the law? Oh, that's right, you were ignoring it as much as possible, you bastards.
Former acting State Police Superintendent Preston Felton admitted breaking state law in connection with the Dirty Tricks scandal involving Eliot Spitzer's use of the state police against a political foe, public-integrity officials said yesterday.
The decision from the Public Integrity Commission closes an outstanding chapter of the "Troopergate" scandal, which was the beginning of the end for then-Gov. Spitzer.
This should have been The End for Spitzer; this was a gross abuse of power and violation of law. He, as well as every other boob involved, should have been fired from their position and prosecuted for this.
Of course, as long as the target is the correct type, an awful lot of the media and politicians don't mind privacy and other laws being violated(see 'Joe the plumber'); instead they'll make excuses for the criminal acts.
Former acting State Police Superintendent Preston Felton admitted breaking state law in connection with the Dirty Tricks scandal involving Eliot Spitzer's use of the state police against a political foe, public-integrity officials said yesterday.
The decision from the Public Integrity Commission closes an outstanding chapter of the "Troopergate" scandal, which was the beginning of the end for then-Gov. Spitzer.
This should have been The End for Spitzer; this was a gross abuse of power and violation of law. He, as well as every other boob involved, should have been fired from their position and prosecuted for this.
Of course, as long as the target is the correct type, an awful lot of the media and politicians don't mind privacy and other laws being violated(see 'Joe the plumber'); instead they'll make excuses for the criminal acts.
My, my, my, isn't this interesting?
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
...
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
Not just the e-mails, but the truth in general of how many globular warmering believers have twisted the information to suit their outcome is damaging as hell to trust in the sciences; these people are trying to put handcuffs and leg irons on us to suit their beliefs, and they're willing to lie and fake to do it.
And let us not forget the politicians who either ignored or lied about those pointing out inconvenient facts that worked against their desire for power over us. They need tar and feathers, too.
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
...
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
Not just the e-mails, but the truth in general of how many globular warmering believers have twisted the information to suit their outcome is damaging as hell to trust in the sciences; these people are trying to put handcuffs and leg irons on us to suit their beliefs, and they're willing to lie and fake to do it.
And let us not forget the politicians who either ignored or lied about those pointing out inconvenient facts that worked against their desire for power over us. They need tar and feathers, too.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Add it all up, and I truly despise this president
For those not familiar with flag etiquette, the United States flag is never to be flown lower then another country's flag and it should never be dipped. When it is displayed alongside flags of other nations it must be the same height or higher. The flag as depicted in this picture is dipped, think of it as a bow.
I must devolve to bad language: I'm wondering what God-damned miserable lawyer/politician in uniform
thought this shit was a good idea?
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
Well, isn't that just ficking wonderful? To give you an idea of the bullshit going on here,
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Which sounds to me like "You want to charge me with a crime in this? Fine. Let's have a court-martial, put everyone under oath and make this a matter of records, with everyone's name attached." I'd add "You miserable scum-sucking bastard", but I'm not as disciplined as these men.
And just what was the horrible act that's causing this?
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
...
.....
I'm wondering if anyone has asked the fucking morons behind this if their brain is located up their ass, or if they have one at all?
Updated: Apparently Allahpundit at HotAir doesn't think the Seals being charged on this is a big deal; Uncle Jimbo tells him different. Including Noted beta male and "many moons ago" entertaining blogger Allahpundit at Hot Air throws three Navy SEALs under the bus just to appease people who are only safe to be appeased, himself included, because of these rough men. No link from me.
Me either.
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
Well, isn't that just ficking wonderful? To give you an idea of the bullshit going on here,
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Which sounds to me like "You want to charge me with a crime in this? Fine. Let's have a court-martial, put everyone under oath and make this a matter of records, with everyone's name attached." I'd add "You miserable scum-sucking bastard", but I'm not as disciplined as these men.
And just what was the horrible act that's causing this?
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
...
.....
I'm wondering if anyone has asked the fucking morons behind this if their brain is located up their ass, or if they have one at all?
Updated: Apparently Allahpundit at HotAir doesn't think the Seals being charged on this is a big deal; Uncle Jimbo tells him different. Including Noted beta male and "many moons ago" entertaining blogger Allahpundit at Hot Air throws three Navy SEALs under the bus just to appease people who are only safe to be appeased, himself included, because of these rough men. No link from me.
Me either.
So Sen. Reid got more than a vote from Landrieu
for our money.
..."Does there exist beneath heaven a spectacle more debased than that of a demagogue orating before the masses? Each syllable screeches of shamelessness, and why? Because we discern, hearing this vile wretch pimp himself to the multitude, that his speech springs not from the true conviction of his soul, but is crafted cunningly to truckle to the whim of the mob. He seeks his own advancement by their favor and will say anything, however wicked or infamous, to promote his stature in their eyes. In other words the politician is the supreme slave."
Tides of War, Steven Pressfield
..."Does there exist beneath heaven a spectacle more debased than that of a demagogue orating before the masses? Each syllable screeches of shamelessness, and why? Because we discern, hearing this vile wretch pimp himself to the multitude, that his speech springs not from the true conviction of his soul, but is crafted cunningly to truckle to the whim of the mob. He seeks his own advancement by their favor and will say anything, however wicked or infamous, to promote his stature in their eyes. In other words the politician is the supreme slave."
Tides of War, Steven Pressfield
There are people for whom it would be very appropriate to explain
"He needed killing." The sorry excuses for men who did these things are some of them.
More on the British 'Justice' System
Police are routinely arresting people simply to record their DNA profiles on the national database, according to a report published today.
...
Jonathan Montgomery, commission chairman, said that “function creep” over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects. Almost one million innocent people are now on the DNA database.
Well, isn't THAT just freakin' wonderful?
Professor Montgomery said there was some evidence that people were arrested to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstance.
He said that a retired senior police officer told the commission: “It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons . . . is so that DNA can be obtained.” He said that the tradition of only arresting someone when dealing with serious offences had collapsed.
And, just to make this even more fun,
The report’s foreword states that the DNA profiles of 75 per cent of black men aged 18 to 35 are recorded. But the commission admitted that it had “hardened up slightly” earlier estimates quoted in Parliament.
So, along with self-defense and looking sideways at a muslim and such, police in formerly Great Britain can arrest you just so they can force you to give a DNA sample.
Again, until there's a revolution over there, I never want to hear of the Brit 'Justice' System without scare quotes or suitable derision.
...
Jonathan Montgomery, commission chairman, said that “function creep” over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects. Almost one million innocent people are now on the DNA database.
Well, isn't THAT just freakin' wonderful?
Professor Montgomery said there was some evidence that people were arrested to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstance.
He said that a retired senior police officer told the commission: “It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so. It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons . . . is so that DNA can be obtained.” He said that the tradition of only arresting someone when dealing with serious offences had collapsed.
And, just to make this even more fun,
The report’s foreword states that the DNA profiles of 75 per cent of black men aged 18 to 35 are recorded. But the commission admitted that it had “hardened up slightly” earlier estimates quoted in Parliament.
So, along with self-defense and looking sideways at a muslim and such, police in formerly Great Britain can arrest you just so they can force you to give a DNA sample.
Again, until there's a revolution over there, I never want to hear of the Brit 'Justice' System without scare quotes or suitable derision.
Transparency! and Ethics!! in the White House
Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that “his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a ‘consensus’ in favor of removal.” But Republican investigators later discovered that during that “extensive review,” the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation’s board — the very people whose “consensus” purportedly led to Walpin’s firing.
Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, “no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate,” according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that “the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action.”
...
The new information shows that Obama fired Walpin for political purposes, not for cause. The White House also broke the law, at least initially, by not giving Congress the proper notification before terminating Walpin (they adhered to the regulation after being called on this violation by postponing Walpin’s termination date). The firing appears to have been motivated to protect an Obama ally (Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson) from having allegations of using federal funds to pay off employees and avoid sexual harassment charges exposed. The White House essentially smeared Walpin with completely unsubstantiated allegations of senility to undermine his credibility, once Walpin went public. One might think that the national media would take an interest in this, but as York also notes, their interest has never been very intense at all.
Hey, if they show an interest it causes problems for Obama, and the major media just won't allow that.
Added:
Sexual abuse accusations by St. HOPE Academy students against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson were apparently covered up, possibly with "hush money," according to a 61-page report
Other than board chairman Alan Solomont, the Democratic mega-donor and Obama supporter who originally told the White House of his dissatisfaction with Walpin, “no member of the CNCS board had any substantive input about whether the removal of Gerald Walpin was appropriate,” according to the report. Only one other board member, vice-chairman Stephen Goldsmith, was even called by the White House, and that was on June 10, a few hours before Walpin was fired. According to the report, Goldsmith told investigators that “the White House had already decided to remove Walpin and wanted to confirm [Goldsmith's] support for the action.”
...
The new information shows that Obama fired Walpin for political purposes, not for cause. The White House also broke the law, at least initially, by not giving Congress the proper notification before terminating Walpin (they adhered to the regulation after being called on this violation by postponing Walpin’s termination date). The firing appears to have been motivated to protect an Obama ally (Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson) from having allegations of using federal funds to pay off employees and avoid sexual harassment charges exposed. The White House essentially smeared Walpin with completely unsubstantiated allegations of senility to undermine his credibility, once Walpin went public. One might think that the national media would take an interest in this, but as York also notes, their interest has never been very intense at all.
Hey, if they show an interest it causes problems for Obama, and the major media just won't allow that.
Added:
Sexual abuse accusations by St. HOPE Academy students against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson were apparently covered up, possibly with "hush money," according to a 61-page report
issued by congressional investigators.
Failure of school officials to report sexual abuse of minors violates California state law, investigative staff of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted in their report on the June firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
The allegations investigated by Walpin's office were "very serious," Grassley said in a statement, saying that evidence indicates a political motive for the IG's firing. "It seems a lot of people might have been interested in protecting the AmeriCorps program and the Mayor of Sacramento from an IG who was discovering some unpleasant facts."
A long time ago, when I was first learning about the sciences,
one of the things that was pointed out in the textbooks and by the teacher, over and over was that there was a process you went through with an idea. Each step had to be gone through and if- at any point- your idea was found to be wrong, you dumped it. If it was a little off from the facts you dug to make sure of the facts, and you changed your theory to fit the facts; you never diddled with the facts because you couldn't stand the idea of changing your theory, because that way lay nothing but bad. You would be found untrustworthy, anyone who had gone down a blind alley or screwed other research around by trusting your reports would never let it be forgotten, your name would be Mud; and for good reason. To borrow a bit,
This is really all about trust. If Professor A. Einstein publishes E=mc2, the fact that the publication has been peer reviewed, the publication includes enough detail that you feel confident it could be replicated, and the results are then subject to challenge means that you can trust what’s in the publication. “Science” is a social contract — an agreement that allows scientists to trust what they’re told by their fellows.
and
We’re only beginning to analyze and understand the full implications of these emails and the associated data. Among other things, however, these emails suggest that a number of highly reputable climate scientists had been conniving for years to prevent other researchers from obtaining the data needed to replicate climate science results. At the same time, these scientists appear to have colluded to subvert the whole peer review process in order to prevent critical or contradictory results from being published.
This violates the whole social contract that is the basis of what we call science.
This mess has done more than that; it may pretty much destroy the trust a lot of people had in science. A lot of politicians have been using this research to work at forcing Cap & Trade down our throats with all the increase in government power and loss of freedom that's part of it. And the cost; I'd say 'billions', but when you look at down the road that's far too small a number for what this would cost. And in the name of helping politicians seize even more control of our lives many scientists were quite willing to corrupt the system. Unfortunately, the crap revealed in the documents from CRU is only part of it: we've heard and read the attempts by other people, some of them scientists who're supposed to know better, to trash anyone who dares to disagree with the theory, to try to destroy careers and lives. Often by 'scientists' who hid data that, by law, was supposed to be available for review, for one example of violation of the method.
This has damaged, maybe destroyed, trust in the peer-reviewed journals(what was still there); when you have hard evidence of them working with the True Believers to suppress dissent from the favored idea, why would you trust them again? At the least, every editor who had a hand in these actions needs to go; they've shown they cannot be trusted to honestly oversee the process.
And I come back to the control these bastards sought over our lives. They've been helping the bureaucrats and politicians who want control over us in every way, aiding them in reducing our choices, in raising taxes, in controlling our transport and food and heating and cooling and everything else in the Holy Name of Stopping Global Warming, using faked information and falsified charts and hysteria.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
Let's not forget the lives that will be lost in developing countries because they couldn't be allowed the power that makes clean water and ways to cook other than charcoal or dried dung and lights for the night.
Right now you've got clowns like Monbiot trying hard to say "It's only some work by a few people affected by these e-mails", which is bullshit but he's trying hard; so are others. They would rather see people dead and lives destroyed to protect their tin god AGW than confess there just might be a problem with it.
The one thing that really makes this mess different than some other scientific frauds of the past is people can look at this and see what's already been done to their lives because of it, and see what damage is still hanging, waiting to fall, that was based on this crap. Maybe that'll help get it cleaned up. And the mess shoved right up the ass of people like Waxman who tried to use AGW as a club on us.
This is really all about trust. If Professor A. Einstein publishes E=mc2, the fact that the publication has been peer reviewed, the publication includes enough detail that you feel confident it could be replicated, and the results are then subject to challenge means that you can trust what’s in the publication. “Science” is a social contract — an agreement that allows scientists to trust what they’re told by their fellows.
and
We’re only beginning to analyze and understand the full implications of these emails and the associated data. Among other things, however, these emails suggest that a number of highly reputable climate scientists had been conniving for years to prevent other researchers from obtaining the data needed to replicate climate science results. At the same time, these scientists appear to have colluded to subvert the whole peer review process in order to prevent critical or contradictory results from being published.
This violates the whole social contract that is the basis of what we call science.
This mess has done more than that; it may pretty much destroy the trust a lot of people had in science. A lot of politicians have been using this research to work at forcing Cap & Trade down our throats with all the increase in government power and loss of freedom that's part of it. And the cost; I'd say 'billions', but when you look at down the road that's far too small a number for what this would cost. And in the name of helping politicians seize even more control of our lives many scientists were quite willing to corrupt the system. Unfortunately, the crap revealed in the documents from CRU is only part of it: we've heard and read the attempts by other people, some of them scientists who're supposed to know better, to trash anyone who dares to disagree with the theory, to try to destroy careers and lives. Often by 'scientists' who hid data that, by law, was supposed to be available for review, for one example of violation of the method.
This has damaged, maybe destroyed, trust in the peer-reviewed journals(what was still there); when you have hard evidence of them working with the True Believers to suppress dissent from the favored idea, why would you trust them again? At the least, every editor who had a hand in these actions needs to go; they've shown they cannot be trusted to honestly oversee the process.
And I come back to the control these bastards sought over our lives. They've been helping the bureaucrats and politicians who want control over us in every way, aiding them in reducing our choices, in raising taxes, in controlling our transport and food and heating and cooling and everything else in the Holy Name of Stopping Global Warming, using faked information and falsified charts and hysteria.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
Let's not forget the lives that will be lost in developing countries because they couldn't be allowed the power that makes clean water and ways to cook other than charcoal or dried dung and lights for the night.
Right now you've got clowns like Monbiot trying hard to say "It's only some work by a few people affected by these e-mails", which is bullshit but he's trying hard; so are others. They would rather see people dead and lives destroyed to protect their tin god AGW than confess there just might be a problem with it.
The one thing that really makes this mess different than some other scientific frauds of the past is people can look at this and see what's already been done to their lives because of it, and see what damage is still hanging, waiting to fall, that was based on this crap. Maybe that'll help get it cleaned up. And the mess shoved right up the ass of people like Waxman who tried to use AGW as a club on us.
Monday, November 23, 2009
In a probably never-ending series of "Hey, I can make that now!" moments
I turned on the lathe the other day and made a new neck expander for 7.62 Nagant. Original on the left,
just-tried-out on the right. The expander shank is longer, and shaped a bit different at the base. If you're not familiar with this cartridge, the bullet actually sits down inside the case
like this. The original expander is from the Lee die set, which is actually to form and expand 32-20 cases. Which works, but they're much shorter than actual Nagant cases. I covered forming .223 brass to make full-length cases here; the expander works on them, but doesn't go deep enough or quite large enough. So I found a suitable piece of steel and turned this new one.
I just finished loading fifty rounds, and this new expander does make a noticeable difference when seating the bullet, so this was well worth doing. It's not drilled like the original for charging the case, but I never used that feature so it's not a loss.
Note: If you've seen the newer factory loads for this cartridge, you'll notice they have a very severe crimp of the case mouth. Back when I got the pistol I also got a box of Russian target ammo, and it did not have that crimp; it was a simple taper of the case. So that's what I've done, and it's worked well.
just-tried-out on the right. The expander shank is longer, and shaped a bit different at the base. If you're not familiar with this cartridge, the bullet actually sits down inside the case
like this. The original expander is from the Lee die set, which is actually to form and expand 32-20 cases. Which works, but they're much shorter than actual Nagant cases. I covered forming .223 brass to make full-length cases here; the expander works on them, but doesn't go deep enough or quite large enough. So I found a suitable piece of steel and turned this new one. I just finished loading fifty rounds, and this new expander does make a noticeable difference when seating the bullet, so this was well worth doing. It's not drilled like the original for charging the case, but I never used that feature so it's not a loss.
Note: If you've seen the newer factory loads for this cartridge, you'll notice they have a very severe crimp of the case mouth. Back when I got the pistol I also got a box of Russian target ammo, and it did not have that crimp; it was a simple taper of the case. So that's what I've done, and it's worked well.
Ok, just how effing stupid do you have to be
to not only get rid of a bunch of documents of this sort, but to just throw them in a dumpster? When you know people are watching you? What, you morons couldn't find an incinerator or fireplace or something?
The level of loss of control of your own country,
for a government to ask the UN to send troops...
And I'm not even getting into the level of mess you're adding to the situation by having the blue helmets running around.
And I'm not even getting into the level of mess you're adding to the situation by having the blue helmets running around.
If this is accurate, the word 'betrayal' comes to mind Updated
It comes to our attention that the MEMRI Blog highlights an article from the Saudi _al-Watan_ in Arabic that - according to an Afghan source - the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes:
An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
Kunar province borders the Khyber Pass region where the majority of US and NATO supplies pass enroute from Pakistan. And the4 remaining four provinces constitute fully the southern 25% of Afghanistan's territory.
This, if true, is a disturbing development.
No bleeping kidding; 'disturbing' is an understatement.
Update: this is at ThreatsWatch today:
The US embassy in Kabul has responded to the ThreatsWatch post yesterday highlighting a report in the Saudi al Watan newspaper saying Ambassador Eikenberry was in secret talks with the Taliban and offering territory in exchange for a cessation of rocket attacks on US bases. (See: Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?)
Early Tuesday morning, US Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden denied the veracity of the Sunday Saudi report.
"There is no truth to reports that the U.S. Embassy is engaging in secret talks with elements of the Taliban. Our position on the inclusion of Taliban and other fighters into Afghan society remains unchanged: we support the efforts of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghan to reintegrate fighters and other disaffected individuals into society, under the Afghan constitution. This process must be Afghan-led."
We take the US embassy in Kabul at its word. The Tuesday morning denial is the first we have seen in response to the anonymously Afghan-sourced al-Watan report.
I damn well hope this is the truth.
Some on the outcome in Honduras,
which I missed a while back, from Sailor Curt.
What this post is about is the classic 6 year old response from Zelaya, the Kindergarten-level wanna-be dictator: "Fine...you're not gonna give me what I want, but I don't want it any more anyway, so I win! Nya!":
I hate to break the news to him, but I don't think this declaration is going to break anyone's heart...especially since there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hades that he was going to be offered a return to the Presidency anyway.
Obama's got his out. You handed it to him on a silver platter when you signed that agreement. You've been had. Swindled. Bamboozled. How's the underside of that Obama bus look? Say "hi" to Reverend Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, etc etc etc, while you're there enjoying the view.
It should also be noted that Brazil, having tried to help Zelaya take over the Honduran government, also invited the slimy little scumbag Ahmadogcrap to visit. And a lot of people aren't too happy about it.
What this post is about is the classic 6 year old response from Zelaya, the Kindergarten-level wanna-be dictator: "Fine...you're not gonna give me what I want, but I don't want it any more anyway, so I win! Nya!":
Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said on Saturday he would refuse to return to the presidency as part of any deal to end the crisis sparked by his ouster, saying that to do so would legitimize a June coup.
I hate to break the news to him, but I don't think this declaration is going to break anyone's heart...especially since there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hades that he was going to be offered a return to the Presidency anyway.
Obama's got his out. You handed it to him on a silver platter when you signed that agreement. You've been had. Swindled. Bamboozled. How's the underside of that Obama bus look? Say "hi" to Reverend Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, etc etc etc, while you're there enjoying the view.
It should also be noted that Brazil, having tried to help Zelaya take over the Honduran government, also invited the slimy little scumbag Ahmadogcrap to visit. And a lot of people aren't too happy about it.
Ooooh, the New York Effing Times has discovered ethical behavior!
A new slogan for the NYT: “All the news that is intended for the public eye.” Michael Goldfarb responds: “Of course, when the choice is between publishing classified information that might endanger the lives of U.S. troops in the field or intelligence programs vital to national security, that information is published without hesitation …” Another reason Revkin would prefer that the emails remain concealed: Revkin’s friendly missives are among them.The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
As to that 'hacking', maybe not:
Mr. Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit has made no secret of his repeated attempts to demand, under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, that Phil Jones and his team yield up the data that are the basis of their claims for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its effects. Preliminary analysis of the archived e-mails also indicates that Jones knew of McIntyre’s efforts and was taking steps to stall and thwart them, in violation of the law. Perhaps, then, someone at CRU decided to take the law into his own hands.
Yeah, someone might have gotten a bit nervous about all that illegal activity- deleting files and so forth- and decided to act.
The CRU people are definitely living in interesting times.
Snork... well, we are well-armed at the least
John was talking about his book at one of the B&Ns. He got to the part about how in his world, humans are being ranched. A bug eyed crazy guy says “It is true! Lizard people are ranching us! IT’S TRUE!!!!” He was totally serious. John figured that my audience was made up of the well-armed gentlemen who could have profound discussions on the nature of human liberty and his audience was the guy off his meds. Sadly by pointing this out I’ve doomed this prophet of truth, as now the Reptoids know that someone in Arizona is on to them.
If this is how they plan to 'train' teachers in Minnesota,
you'd better plan on private school or home schooling if you want your kids to learn anything but marxist bullcrap:
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
...
The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
...
The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."
The task group opens its report with a model for officially approved confessional statements: "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?"
...
After indoctrination of this kind, who wouldn't conclude that the American Dream of equality for all is a cruel hoax? But just to make sure, the task force recommends requiring "our future teachers" to "articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis" of this view of the American promise. In the process, they must incorporate the "myth of meritocracy in the United States," the "history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values, [and] history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology."
Got that? If you believe something like 'not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character' that proves you're a racist. Uh huh.
What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."
I wonder if they already have plans for firing squads for the unbelievers? And, of course, they'll bill the estate of the deceased for the cost of the cartridge, just like their heroes the PRC(can't have that money coming out of the 'Education' budget, now can we?)
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
...
The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
...
The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."
The task group opens its report with a model for officially approved confessional statements: "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?"
...
After indoctrination of this kind, who wouldn't conclude that the American Dream of equality for all is a cruel hoax? But just to make sure, the task force recommends requiring "our future teachers" to "articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis" of this view of the American promise. In the process, they must incorporate the "myth of meritocracy in the United States," the "history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values, [and] history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology."
Got that? If you believe something like 'not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character' that proves you're a racist. Uh huh.
What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."
I wonder if they already have plans for firing squads for the unbelievers? And, of course, they'll bill the estate of the deceased for the cost of the cartridge, just like their heroes the PRC(can't have that money coming out of the 'Education' budget, now can we?)
Some thoughts on the current almost-nonexistant hurrican season
in the Atlantic.
LA Times today: Atlantic hurricane season appears over -- to some. I love the ominousness of the last two words.
LA Times today: Atlantic hurricane season appears over -- to some. I love the ominousness of the last two words.
"The hurricane season goes until Nov. 30. Each day we get closer to that, it looks better and better that we won't see any more tropical activity," said center spokesman Dennis Feltgen. "But don't raid the hurricane kit yet."But...
Because El Niño has created strong wind shear over the tropics, "the odds of a storm are very, very small from this point on," said Gray, who closed the book on the 2009 season Thursday.
But was it El Niño - or something else...
A real good summation of political 'success'
Switching to much more expensive energy may be acceptable for us in the developed world. But in the developing world, there are still tens of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death. So for the developing world, the overriding priority has to be the fastest feasible rate of economic development, which means, inter alia, using the cheapest available form of energy: carbon-based energy.
Mr Brown’s Copenhagen objective will, happily, not be achieved. But the meeting will still be declared a great success. Politicians do not like being associated with failure, so they will make sure that whatever emerges from Copenhagen is declared a success, and promise to meet again next year. This will at least give our political leaders the time to get themselves off the hook.
Mr Brown’s Copenhagen objective will, happily, not be achieved. But the meeting will still be declared a great success. Politicians do not like being associated with failure, so they will make sure that whatever emerges from Copenhagen is declared a success, and promise to meet again next year. This will at least give our political leaders the time to get themselves off the hook.
I guess this isn't the 'Iraq stepping up' the Democrats wanted
The Iraqis previously accused Syria of having responsibility for the twin bombings in Baghdad on August 19, which really escalated the crisis between the two countries and resulted in the recalling of ambassadors. The Iraqis say they have wiretaps, confessions from captured terrorists, and photos of terrorist training camps in Syria to prove the Assad regime’s role in facilitating the attacks. They also have documents outlining the routes used by the terrorists to reach Iraq from Syria. On August 30, the Iraqis released the videotaped confession of a captured al-Qaeda terrorist believed to have led operations in Diyala Province, saying that he was trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Syria that “was well known to Syrian intelligence.”
The U.S. has disgracefully reacted to the crisis with neutrality. On August 26, a spokesperson for the State Department was asked about the tension between Iraq and Syria. He responded with: “We consider that an internal matter. We believe that, as a general principle, diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties.”
Hey, dumbass, we've got troops in Iraq, and we ARE affected by Syria's actions; so we have the choice that the administration either A: is too worried about seeming 'evenhanded' to act, even with words that actually mean something or B: don't care.
Wonderful, isn't it?
The U.S. has disgracefully reacted to the crisis with neutrality. On August 26, a spokesperson for the State Department was asked about the tension between Iraq and Syria. He responded with: “We consider that an internal matter. We believe that, as a general principle, diplomatic dialogue is the best means to address the concerns of both parties.”
Hey, dumbass, we've got troops in Iraq, and we ARE affected by Syria's actions; so we have the choice that the administration either A: is too worried about seeming 'evenhanded' to act, even with words that actually mean something or B: don't care.
Wonderful, isn't it?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
And the Holder Circus begins
NEW YORK – The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
Like we didn't see this coming.
Back to idiocy and/or incompetence at the Effing.B.I.,
In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.
The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI's Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.
Hasan's contacts with extremist imam Anwar al-Aulaqi began as religious queries but took on a more specific and concrete tone before he moved to Texas, where he allegedly unleashed the Nov. 5 attack that killed 13 people and wounded nearly three dozen, said the sources who were briefed on the e-mails, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the case is sensitive and unfolding. One of those sources said the two discussed in "cryptic and coded exchanges" the transfer of money overseas in ways that would not attract law enforcement attention.
Attention, EffingBI: when a serving officer of the US military is doing things like this, it just might be a good idea to let the service know about it. Wouldn't you think? I mean, I'm not a Very Special Agent of the Effing.B.I., but even I can figure this out.
The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI's Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.
Hasan's contacts with extremist imam Anwar al-Aulaqi began as religious queries but took on a more specific and concrete tone before he moved to Texas, where he allegedly unleashed the Nov. 5 attack that killed 13 people and wounded nearly three dozen, said the sources who were briefed on the e-mails, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the case is sensitive and unfolding. One of those sources said the two discussed in "cryptic and coded exchanges" the transfer of money overseas in ways that would not attract law enforcement attention.
Attention, EffingBI: when a serving officer of the US military is doing things like this, it just might be a good idea to let the service know about it. Wouldn't you think? I mean, I'm not a Very Special Agent of the Effing.B.I., but even I can figure this out.
Massachusetts Superior Court judge Daniel Ford is one of those people,
who if he actually had any honor left, or sense of shame, would not show his face in public anymore.
Baran was convicted in January 1985 of molesting six children at a pre-kindergarten day care facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. He was released on bond in 2006 after an appeals court determined that his trial attorney had been incompetent and that the prosecution may have withheld key exculpatory evidence. Baran says that during his jail term he was raped and beaten more than 30 times, necessitating six different transfers to new correctional institutions. Such is the cost the prison system exacts on an openly gay man convicted of molesting children.
...
In this case, prosecutor Daniel Ford, now a judge on the Massachusetts Superior Court, showed the grand jury that indicted Baran an edited video interview with the children. According to court documents, the video shows several kids alleging that Baran had sexually abused them. Edited out was footage in which some of the children denied any abuse by Baran, interviewees accused other members of the day care faculty of abuse or of witnessing abuse, and, most important, interrogators asked the same questions over and over—even after repeated denials—until a child gave them an affirmative answer. Some children were even given rewards for their answers.
Withholding the unedited video from the grand jury was itself an act of misconduct. An appeals court suggested that prosecutor Ford may also have withheld it from Baran’s trial attorney. We can only say “may” because there has never been a hearing on the issue, and Baran’s trial attorney was far from competent. (Judge Ford did not respond to multiple requests for comment.) In granting Baran a new trial in 2006, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Francis Fecteau never moved beyond the inadequacy of Baran’s lawyer. When the case reached the state appeals court, the justices not only upheld Fecteau’s ruling; they looked more closely at Ford’s possible misconduct. “While the record does not settle the question whether the unedited videotapes were deliberately withheld by the prosecution,” the ruling said, “there are indications in the trial transcript consistent with that contention.”
I can't call this simply 'misconduct'; this should be 'tampering with evidence', this should be- Hell, what would you call this kind of crap?
When that child later tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat, Ford used the test against Baran at trial, even though a) the child never accused Baran of forcing him to perform oral sex, b) the child, in fact, specifically denied having sexual contact with Baran on the witness stand, c) Baran tested negative for gonorrhea, d) the boy had told his mother two months prior that his stepfather had orally raped him, and e) on the very day Baran was convicted, charges against the stepfather were turned over to the district attorney’s office for possible prosecution. Baran’s counsel was never informed of the allegation against the stepfather. Addressing the gonorrhea issue in his closing arguments, Ford implied that Baran’s “lifestyle” made it probable that he contracted gonorrhea at other times and knew how to quickly eradicate it to cover his tracks.
Can you believe this shit? I know, rhetorical question; there's far too many examples of prosecutors and police screwing with evidence and hiding stuff from the defense for this to be too surprising. And it really, truly pisses me off.
In upholding the ruling that granted Baran a new trial, the appeals court added in a footnote that if the state wanted to retry him, Baran could file a motion for a hearing on Ford’s alleged misconduct. By dropping the charges, the D.A. avoided that hearing. “In my opinion,” says Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate, “ the possibility of an embarrassing hearing into misconduct by a former prosecutor and now sitting Superior Court judge was the main reason, if not the reason, they decided to drop the charges. The appeals court opinion cut a bit too close to the bone for them.”
So while Bernard Baran is free after 22 years of incarceration, there are no plans to look into the actions of the prosecutor, now a sitting judge, responsible for his conviction. Ford’s career trajectory indicates the backward incentive structure that prosecutors face: Convictions produce rewards, while abuse rarely comes with a penalty.
Which has to change; there has to be some actual penalty for this kind of crap. It should include disbarment and go from there.
One Ford defender told the publication that it’s unfair to hold the judge accountable for something he did a quarter century ago.
Bull-effing- etc. A man spent more than two decades in prison because of this corrupt man Daniel Ford; his life was destroyed. And it took years to get the current minions of the law to do anything about it, and I'll bet you some of the discussion had nothing to do with right or wrong, it had to do with "Do we want to upset the judge by releasing this?" Which translates to "Screw that the law demands we do this, can we get away with not doing it, and keep the judge happy?" Which is further misconduct, and violation of law.
And, by the way, there's another question: since as prosecutor Daniel Ford did this crap here, are there any other cases in which he broke the law and tampered with evidence to get a conviction, quite possibly of someone innocent of the crime? How many times may he have done it, and how much harm did he do, to people wrongly jailed and the Law he swore to uphold? Should we ignore that because 'it was years ago' too?
What Wolfwalker said about the released documents on the global-warming 'scientists' holds just as true here: these people abused their position, violated ethics and have now provided one more example for people to point to and say "I'm supposed to trust you cops? Prosecutors? Judges? Look what you clowns were caught at AGAIN!"
A while back Rodger posted this, and I finally got around to watching it: Never, Ever, Talk To The Police. One of the interesting things is after the lawyer finishes, the cop gets up to have his say, and begins with "I agree with everything he said, don't talk to the police because anything you say WILL be used against you."(not exact words). Years ago that would have driven me nuts, and I still don't like it; but I think it's the right thing to do. Because history has shown that far too many of police and prosecutors both cannot be trusted to care more about the law and justice than about getting another arrest or conviction in their "See how wonderful I am?" record. And when they get caught, rarely does anything actually happen to them for screwing an innocent over(see 'crooked prosecutor becomes judge' and 'authorities don't want to trouble judge over past misconduct' above).
Damn, reading this is a sorry way to start the day.
Baran was convicted in January 1985 of molesting six children at a pre-kindergarten day care facility in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. He was released on bond in 2006 after an appeals court determined that his trial attorney had been incompetent and that the prosecution may have withheld key exculpatory evidence. Baran says that during his jail term he was raped and beaten more than 30 times, necessitating six different transfers to new correctional institutions. Such is the cost the prison system exacts on an openly gay man convicted of molesting children.
...
In this case, prosecutor Daniel Ford, now a judge on the Massachusetts Superior Court, showed the grand jury that indicted Baran an edited video interview with the children. According to court documents, the video shows several kids alleging that Baran had sexually abused them. Edited out was footage in which some of the children denied any abuse by Baran, interviewees accused other members of the day care faculty of abuse or of witnessing abuse, and, most important, interrogators asked the same questions over and over—even after repeated denials—until a child gave them an affirmative answer. Some children were even given rewards for their answers.
Withholding the unedited video from the grand jury was itself an act of misconduct. An appeals court suggested that prosecutor Ford may also have withheld it from Baran’s trial attorney. We can only say “may” because there has never been a hearing on the issue, and Baran’s trial attorney was far from competent. (Judge Ford did not respond to multiple requests for comment.) In granting Baran a new trial in 2006, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Francis Fecteau never moved beyond the inadequacy of Baran’s lawyer. When the case reached the state appeals court, the justices not only upheld Fecteau’s ruling; they looked more closely at Ford’s possible misconduct. “While the record does not settle the question whether the unedited videotapes were deliberately withheld by the prosecution,” the ruling said, “there are indications in the trial transcript consistent with that contention.”
I can't call this simply 'misconduct'; this should be 'tampering with evidence', this should be- Hell, what would you call this kind of crap?
When that child later tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat, Ford used the test against Baran at trial, even though a) the child never accused Baran of forcing him to perform oral sex, b) the child, in fact, specifically denied having sexual contact with Baran on the witness stand, c) Baran tested negative for gonorrhea, d) the boy had told his mother two months prior that his stepfather had orally raped him, and e) on the very day Baran was convicted, charges against the stepfather were turned over to the district attorney’s office for possible prosecution. Baran’s counsel was never informed of the allegation against the stepfather. Addressing the gonorrhea issue in his closing arguments, Ford implied that Baran’s “lifestyle” made it probable that he contracted gonorrhea at other times and knew how to quickly eradicate it to cover his tracks.
Can you believe this shit? I know, rhetorical question; there's far too many examples of prosecutors and police screwing with evidence and hiding stuff from the defense for this to be too surprising. And it really, truly pisses me off.
In upholding the ruling that granted Baran a new trial, the appeals court added in a footnote that if the state wanted to retry him, Baran could file a motion for a hearing on Ford’s alleged misconduct. By dropping the charges, the D.A. avoided that hearing. “In my opinion,” says Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate, “ the possibility of an embarrassing hearing into misconduct by a former prosecutor and now sitting Superior Court judge was the main reason, if not the reason, they decided to drop the charges. The appeals court opinion cut a bit too close to the bone for them.”
So while Bernard Baran is free after 22 years of incarceration, there are no plans to look into the actions of the prosecutor, now a sitting judge, responsible for his conviction. Ford’s career trajectory indicates the backward incentive structure that prosecutors face: Convictions produce rewards, while abuse rarely comes with a penalty.
Which has to change; there has to be some actual penalty for this kind of crap. It should include disbarment and go from there.
One Ford defender told the publication that it’s unfair to hold the judge accountable for something he did a quarter century ago.
Bull-effing- etc. A man spent more than two decades in prison because of this corrupt man Daniel Ford; his life was destroyed. And it took years to get the current minions of the law to do anything about it, and I'll bet you some of the discussion had nothing to do with right or wrong, it had to do with "Do we want to upset the judge by releasing this?" Which translates to "Screw that the law demands we do this, can we get away with not doing it, and keep the judge happy?" Which is further misconduct, and violation of law.
And, by the way, there's another question: since as prosecutor Daniel Ford did this crap here, are there any other cases in which he broke the law and tampered with evidence to get a conviction, quite possibly of someone innocent of the crime? How many times may he have done it, and how much harm did he do, to people wrongly jailed and the Law he swore to uphold? Should we ignore that because 'it was years ago' too?
What Wolfwalker said about the released documents on the global-warming 'scientists' holds just as true here: these people abused their position, violated ethics and have now provided one more example for people to point to and say "I'm supposed to trust you cops? Prosecutors? Judges? Look what you clowns were caught at AGAIN!"
A while back Rodger posted this, and I finally got around to watching it: Never, Ever, Talk To The Police. One of the interesting things is after the lawyer finishes, the cop gets up to have his say, and begins with "I agree with everything he said, don't talk to the police because anything you say WILL be used against you."(not exact words). Years ago that would have driven me nuts, and I still don't like it; but I think it's the right thing to do. Because history has shown that far too many of police and prosecutors both cannot be trusted to care more about the law and justice than about getting another arrest or conviction in their "See how wonderful I am?" record. And when they get caught, rarely does anything actually happen to them for screwing an innocent over(see 'crooked prosecutor becomes judge' and 'authorities don't want to trouble judge over past misconduct' above).
Damn, reading this is a sorry way to start the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)