Archive for the 'From the Right' category

Did Doug Hoffman Just Cross the Line Separating "Dirty Politics" and "Defamation"?

Doug Hoffman recently posted a new fundraising letter on his blog. Now, I know some of you might be wondering why the guy is trying to raise money for an election that already happened. It's simple, really. He wants to keep fighting until he gets the seat in Congress that ACORN stole from him.

No, really, that's what he's claiming (if you click the link, make sure you note the url):

As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens.

(Also, note that he never gets around to specifying which unions. Apparently, that's because all of them were out to get him.)

The "evidence" that Hoffman cites in his letter, is unsurprisingly, nothing of the sort. He's taken the mistakes that were uncovered in the election night vote totals - which have narrowed the gap between him and Representative Bill Owens. The mistakes were the kind of thing that happen in every election - results get miscopied, phone problems happen, things go wrong. Most people see election night errors as a good reason to double check the results after the election. Hoffman sees them as evidence of the involvement of that fantastic wingnut all-purpose boogeyman ACORN:

Continue Reading »

11 responses so far

The text of the President's "controversial" education speech has been released...

...and it's easy to see why the right is so up in arms over Obama's plan to start off the new school year by talking to students.

I've just finished reading the text of the speech, and it's just totally jam packed with anti-Republican ideological concepts. Here are some of the highlights:

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning.

Now I wasn't too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I'd fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I'd complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

OMG!! Obama lived in Indonesia! Why didn't we find out about that before the election??!!?? Maybe he was born there!!!1!!ELEVENTY!!! Then he couldn't really be President!!

And what's this nonsense about working hard early in the morning, and about his mother taking responsibility for making sure he was well-educated even if the local schools couldn't do the job. What kind of message is that to send kids?

Continue Reading »

9 responses so far

Cal Thomas: Health Care Reform = Hitler

In his latest column, Cal Thomas takes another swing at explaining the perils of health care. Last week, you might remember, he claimed that health care proponents want to kill off the old because we're evolutionists. This week, we're Hitler:

Continue Reading »

11 responses so far

Representative Joe Barton Brings The Stupid On Climate Change.

Yesterday, the Daily Kos and ThinkProgress reported on some spectacularly inane things that Texas Representative "Smokey Joe" Barton said about carbon dioxide. Now, Barton getting something wrong that involves science or the environment is, of course, nothing new. He is, after all, the man who recently Twittered his pride at "stumping" the Nobel Laureate Energy Secretary with a question that actually demonstrated nothing more than Barton's own ignorance of basic geology. As revealing as that whole little incident was, he managed to make more mistakes yesterday.

Barton committed the errors in an interview he did with newsmax.com's Ronald Kessler. Barton was expressing his disagreement with the EPA's recent decision to regulate industrial carbon dioxide emissions as a greenhouse gas. Barton's arguments took two separate, but equally inept, routes: carbon dioxide isn't harmful; and the EPA's new regulations could cause it to close down events like the Boston Marathon where an excessive amount of heavy breathing is taking place in a short period of time.

Continue Reading »

9 responses so far

2009 H1N1 Swine Flu: Is It Really Worth Making A Vaccine?

At least two medical doctors think that it isn't, and have said so publicly. They feel that the "research has shown" that the new flu isn't going to be very virulent, and question the wisdom of spending $1.5 billion developing a vaccine that "may never be used". I suspect that few of you will be surprised to learn that both these doctors are also Republican members of Congress. Representatives Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun (both of Georgia) made their views known during floor speeches in the House yesterday.

I was not aware that any research had been published that demonstrates that we know anything about how this disease will behave when the normal flu season rolls around this fall. I have not been keeping up with the situation to the same extent that Revere(s) have, but I do know that as of May 1st, we didn't know for sure how virulent swine flu is now. This makes me suspect that the two Distinguished Gentlemen from Georgia are either poorly informed or are making things up on the fly.

Nevertheless, it's possible that the stopped clock rule applies in this instance, and the Representatives are correct in arguing that this is a relatively mild flu. Does that necessarily mean that the it's not worth making a vaccine? Given a current US population of about 300 million, that works out to about $5 a person. Speaking for myself, I think that's a small price to pay if there's even a slight chance that the new flu strain could cause a large number of deaths.

Let's put this in perspective two different ways:

Continue Reading »

12 responses so far

Where's the outrage?

As of when I'm writing this post, a Google News search for the words "Inhofe" and "treason" returns no hits. When I search on "Inhofe" and "sedition", I get the same results. That's also true for a search on the milder combination of "Inhofe" and "inappropriate". What the hell is going on here?

I realize this is old news, but one week ago yesterday, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) issued a press release and the YouTube video embedded below. I don't understand why I'm not seeing any outrage.

Continue Reading »

12 responses so far

Conservapedia Tonight.

Mar 11 2009 Published by under From the Right

The latest entry is one of the more recent "news" articles on the main page. This particular one is more malignant than humorous:

"Dressed in black," a German 17-year-old former public school student kills 15 people.[19]

Wearing all black is characteristic of anti-Christian belief systems. Our list of young mass murderers grows, and see how many were anti-Christian products of public schools.

7 responses so far

Jindal, Katrina, Boats, and Bureaucrats: The Slander Is Worse Than The Lies.

By now, you've probably heard that there's been quite a bit of controversy over a little story about bureaucrats and rescue boats that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal told during his response to President Obama's speech earlier this week:

Let me tell you a story.

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go - when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.

There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes - and this spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.

When I heard Jindal tell that story, my first impression was that he was down there with that sheriff when rescue operations were going on, fighting the bureaucrats right in the thick of the crisis. As it turns out, that wasn't the case. Jindal didn't visit the sheriff until days after the event. His staff now claims that he never even meant to imply that he was there when the sheriff was fighting to put boats in the water, and that allegations that Jindal told a lie are "liberal blogger B.S.".

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass if Jindal was lying. An elected official exaggerating his role in events ain't exactly a shocker. No, I'm not worked up about the dishonesty in that account. It's the defamation that's pissed me off.

There are three government employees in the little 'story' Jindal told - Jindal, the Sheriff, and the bureaucrat. Two of those three employees were there when people needed to be rescued. Yes, assuming that the rest of the story is true, the bureaucrat was demonstrating a tremendous lack of understanding of circumstances when rules should be bent, but the bureaucrat was there. The Sheriff had a better concept of what needed to happen, and he was also there.

Bobby Jindal was not there. He was in Baton Rouge.

He can talk about the "compassionate hearts" of American citizens all he wants, but he damn well better not try to exclude "bureaucrats" from that group. We have - fortunately - no shortage of bureaucrats who have compassionate hearts and who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect others.

Earlier this week, I talked about a little lie Jindal told about "something called volcano monitoring". Right now, I'd like to talk about volcano monitoring and bureaucrats.

800Px-Msh80 David Johnston At Camp 05-17-80 Med

(source: Wikipedia)

That's a picture of a bureaucrat named David Johnston. As you can no doubt tell from his casual attire and posture, that's actually a picture of that particular bureaucrat at work. Twelve hours after the picture was taken, he was still there, and still working. An hour and a half after that, he was dead.

Johnston was a USGS volcanologist. The morning of May 18, 1980, he was on a ridge near Mt. St. Helens, monitoring the volcano. Although it was thought that the site Johnston was using was far enough away to probably be safe from the immediate blast, it was certainly understood that the site wasn't exactly safe. In fact, the morning of the eruption another geologist was out trying to get the Army Reserve to agree to lend them an armored vehicle to improve the safety of the site.

But bureaucrats, and the government, are always the problem.

5 responses so far

Inhumanity in the Colorado State Senate: Words Simply Fail

Remember that Colorado State Senator I talked about yesterday? The one that voted against the HIV testing bill because he thought it would encourage humanity? It turns out that he really, really doesn't know when to stop talking. He gave an interview to the Rocky Mountain News after the vote. Reading the things he said, I'm well and truly past appalled. This man, who currently holds elected political office, clearly does not understand the concept of what it means to be a human being.

What he said afterward:

"What I'm hoping is that yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that.

"The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.

"We can't keep people from being raped. We can't keep people from shooting each other. We can't keep people from jumping off bridges. There are a lot of things we can't do that have negative consequences in our society. People drink and drive and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences."

When I read his statements yesterday, I hoped that he just hadn't considered that the proposed HIV testing would help the children. It had not entered my mind - not even remotely - that this creature might actually think that having the kids get HIV would actually be some sort of benefit.

If this man is not evil, I don't know what evil could possibly look like.

18 responses so far

Tonight's Conservative Stupidity.

I'm going to take a break from my semi-masochistic browsing of Conservapedia tonight. Instead, I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight some much more malignant views.

There have been two separate incidents of hateful speech and behavior, involving two separate Colorado State Senators, in the past week.

The first incident took place on Monday. Republican Scott Renfroe took to the floor of the State Senate to speak in opposition to a bill that would (OH NOES!) give some benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Renfroe apparently started off by informing the crowd that Eve was created to be Adam's "helper". He followed this up by quoting from Leviticus, and then declaring that government shouldn't be "taking sins and making them to be legally OK."

He went on to very helpfully clear up the sort of things that he was talking about:

I'm not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin -- we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal. But what I'm saying that for is that all sin is equal.

As offensive as that was, it pales next to what Republican State Senator Dave Schultheis said today on the State Senate Floor:

I'm going to be a no vote on this. I'm trying to think through what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences -- we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don't think that's the role of this body.

As a result of that I finally came to the conclusion I would have to be a no vote on this because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't vote on this bill and I wanted to explain to this body why I was going to be a no vote on this.

The bill that he was voting no on? It will require HIV testing for pregnant women.

That's right. This twisted excuse for a human being is not only against letting 13 year olds who have kids finish school, he's also in favor of letting the children of HIV-positive mothers get sick and die, because the HIV testing would "remove the negative consequences".

The Senator apparently believes that knowing one is both pregnant and HIV-positive is a positive consequence of promiscuity.

17 responses so far

Older posts »