Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels

Pandagon Watch: Amanda Marcotte Discovers the Secret Goal of Conservatives

2009-12-11T15:31:00.002-06:00

And that is to piss off liberals. I'm not making this stuff up; she actually said that that is the reason so many people either don't believe in global warming or are skeptical about it and question the science. It can't possibly be that every couple of years scientists change their mind about something and announce that they now believe the exact opposite (example: remember when eggs were the worst food on the planet and nobody was supposed to eat them? Then, scientists changed their minds and decided eggs were great! Now, they're somewhere in between).

No, conservatives aren't just rational people with memories longer than Amanda's convenient memory about politics and logic. They clearly aren't skeptical about drastic changes in the way we are supposed to live, including getting rid of cars, crippling American industries and generally taxing the hell out of everyone and dictating how they will live their lives. No, according to Amanda, there are really just two reasons why conservatives don't believe the climate screamers:

1) They’re in deep denial.
2) They know that global warming is real, but they don’t care.

It's no wonder Pandagon has to screen every person who comments on their blog. They have to make sure only the idiotic and insane get on to say, "Wow! What great insight! I knew conservatives were eeeevillll but I didn't know their soul motivation was to piss off liberals!" Amanda couldn't handle someone explaining to her that no, there's not a scientific consensus on global warming and that many well-respected scientists think we need more evidence to make such a declaration (and to determine that (a) human beings are the cause and (b) anything we do will change it anyway). Nor could she handle anyone noting that the cult of global warming isn't merely about getting federal money, but about power and controlling what people can and can't do, which is a key element of liberalism (you don't know what's best for you; only Democrat-controlled organizations/governments know what's best and should have the power to force you to do what they want). Liberals think forcing you to keep your thermostat at 68 in the winter and 80 in the summer is a good thing and letting you decide what temp you want your house at (and pay the bills for) is a bad thing. Or driving a big SUV (and paying the gasoline for it) is a bad thing and forcing everyone who drives to drive a pregnant rollerskate is a good thing.

In other words, what pisses off liberals, and therefore, is the conservative goal, is the idea of individuals living their lives with little government interference, and actually remembering when scientists were afraid of global cooling. Perhaps pissing off liberals this way is a great goal to have.

Kevin Jennings Is Safe Because We're So Disgusted

2009-12-11T07:50:00.001-06:00

The Obama Administration’s Pedophilia Supporting Czar Goes Further Down the Rabbit Hole. Or Something Like That.

Van Jones was undone because he was a 9/11 Truther. We can't get rid of this threat to our children?

Shocker: Democrat Medicare Expansion Would Lead to Single Payer

2009-12-10T16:48:00.002-06:00

Which President Obama supports.

Why shouldn't we accept that socialized medicine is the end goal for Democrats?

Since There Are Soon to be No Editors or Publishers...

2009-12-10T15:43:00.001-06:00

Editor & Publisher to cease publication after 125 years.
...why would we need a publication for them?

Good News

2009-12-09T22:27:00.001-06:00

More than 2/3 of abortion clinics have closed since 1991.

Is that Amanda Marcotte I hear screaming?

Even the Left Has Had Enough

2009-12-09T22:02:00.004-06:00

I wonder if Barack Obama could be a one-term president because both the right and the left have had enough of him?

Jane Hamsher is particularly peeved that the Senate health care plan has no public option. She doesn't buy that increasing eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid will perform the same function.

There's stuff in Hamsher's petition we can both agree on...but for different reasons.

When Barack Obama announced his health care plan in 2007, he said insurance premiums for a family of 4 would be cut by $2500. This plan will see premiums increase $1000 each year.

Obama said “coverage without cost containment will only shift our burdens, not relieve them.” This plan does nothing to meaningfully contain spiraling health care costs.

Obama said “it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair.” This plan includes a deal between the White House and PhRMA that guarantees there will be no negotiation for Medicare prescription drug prices.

Obama said he’d go after the drug companies who “sell the same exact drugs here in America for double the price of what they charge in Europe and Canada.” But the White House deal not only doesn’t do that, it bans the reimportation of cheaper drugs from Canada.

What does this deal do? It forces Americans to buy the products of large corporations, then the IRS penalizes them if they refuse.

The Senate’s triggered public option is a failure of Barack Obama. Let him know. Click here to sign our petition:
http://action.firedoglake.com/obamafail Obama is the only one who can save the public option and make these statements more than mere campaign promises. The fight isn’t over, and we need to let Obama know that a failed public option will be his fault. Thanks for all you do.Best,

Jane Hamsher
Firedoglake

I don't want additional people poured into Medicare and Medicaid because those programs are already underfunded and overtaxed as it is. And with Democrats promising to cut $550 billion from Medicare, it's hard to see how they can cut funding, increase participation and still provide quality care without that dreaded word rationing.

I agree with Hamsher that Democrats have lied all along the way about what Obamacare was going to contain. They promised increased coverage, lower costs and better care, but none of their bills provide any of those things. On top of that, these bills will create worse problems by disincentivizing doctors from taking Medicare patients (thus creating longer wait times for treatment) and pharmaceuticals from creating new treatments. Those who think pharmaceutical and drug manufacturers are going to invent treatments without a profit motive do not understand human nature at all.

Worst of all are the various nefarious worms buried in every bill: taxpayer funding for abortion, taxes on medical devices, jail terms for those who won't buy insurance, forced insurance enrollment, payment cuts for doctors and so on.

It seems to me that when the rabid left turns on Obamacare, it's finished. But I'm not sure the Democrats are smart enough to wash their hands of this mess.

Now This Shows How Low Obama's Approval Has Sunk

2009-12-09T15:30:00.004-06:00

Bush closes the gap

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor.

By 2012, every politician will be claiming to have agreed with GWB.

Maine Reporter Fired for Offending Gay Lobbyists

2009-12-09T15:08:00.003-06:00

Some stories leave you scratching your head. Take the case of the Maine reporter fired for sending a private e-mail opposing gay marriage to the Human Rights Commission.

Larry Grard fired off an angry e-mail to the Human Rights Commission after the HRC sent a press release claiming that Maine's gay marriage proposition died because of "hatred of gays."

Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response. “They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’

“I sent the same message in his face he sent in mine.”

Grard thought his e-mail was anonymous, but the HRC Googled his name and discovered he was a reporter at the Waterville Morning Sentinel. The tolerance policde then demanded that Grard be fired and the weak-kneed sissies at the Morning Sentinel obliged.

According to Grard and his union, the Portland Newspaper Guild, he has never before had any disciplinary issues. Guild president Tom Bell said in an e-mail that a grievance has been filed on Grard’s behalf, and the Guild is awaiting a date for an arbitration hearing, which will probably take place in three or four months. “The Guild is defending the contract,” Bell said, “which requires that there be progressive discipline in situations like this.”

Grard said he wouldn’t be complaining if he’d been subjected to a lesser penalty, such as a reprimand or a suspension without pay, for his first offence. He said reporters frequently send personal e-mails from their own accounts during working hours without incurring management’s wrath.

Grard said he thinks his religious beliefs were a factor in his firing, calling it “anti-Christian bias.” “A lawyer said to me, ‘What if you’d agreed with [the Human Rights Campaign]? Would the company fire you for that? Of course they wouldn’t have,’” he said.

The Sentinel and the other MaineToday papers editorialized in favor of same-sex marriage.

Rarely do I support unions, but the PNG is doing the right thing by supporting Grard in a clearly arbitrary firing case. Grard should sue for wrongful termination, if it's possible.

Worse yet, the newspaper apparently is punishing Grard's wife Lisa for the incident.

The week after Grard was fired, he said, his wife, Lisa, who wrote a biweekly food column for the Sentinel as a freelancer, received an e-mail informing her that her work would no longer be needed.

Could it be that Lisa Grard was canned because the paper "didn't need" her work anymore? Possibly, but the circumstances are mighty fishy.

Democrats Reach Deal on Health Plan? Not Quite.

2009-12-09T11:11:00.002-06:00

Geez, can't these guys just quit lying? Reid doesn't have a bill and he doesn't have 60 votes. What he does have is extended bureaucracies, higher taxes, bigger deficits and more trouble for Americans.

There's no reason to push a bad bill through now, except for political posturing. Democrats know their Waterloo is coming, so they are willing to stick us with this rotten mess regardless.

Diversity Is More Important Than Your Child

2009-12-06T17:30:00.003-06:00

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a website called Teaching Tolerance which is anything but. Specifically, the site is designed to give educators propaganda to promote a variety of ideas, including homosexuality, "diversity," unionization and other politically correct ideas.

Don't get me wrong; teaching children to be kind to those not in "their" groups is great. Jesus told us to be kind to each other. But do publicized pep rallies do as much good as simply teaching children to be nice to each other every day? I expect teachers to emphasize this concept daily, not needing banners to encourage kindness or showing astonishment that young children can and will play with others easily with a little encouragement. It's really not bizarre for elementary school children, for example, to easily adapt to playing with different children.

Unfortunately, Teaching Tolerance is more interested in pushing PC ideas than actually helping children learn and graduate. Take this article on single sex education.

The trend toward single-sex classes began in 2006 as part of the No Child Left Behind reforms. The Department of Education issued new rules making it easier for school districts to create them. Seven years ago, only 11 public schools offered single-sex classes. Now, the National Association for Single-Sex Public Education reports that at least 445 classrooms nationwide are segregated by gender.

Why the rush to segregate? Some educators see it as an answer to the “boy crisis.” They believe that boys struggle in school more than girls and point to lower test scores and higher dropout rates as proof. Critics of this viewpoint say the “crisis” tends to rest with boys at inner city and rural schools – areas where public schools are weak in general.

Beyond this debate, many educators simply feel that single-sex education is best for some – though not all – students. They believe parents should have the choice of putting their children in all-boy or all-girl classes.

The author goes on to declare that only "anecdotal evidence" exists in support of single sex education. But several studies give single sex education positive scores. And women's colleges have been touted for their academic excellence and opportunities for decades.

But the article links to no evidence supporting either single sex education or co-ed education. In fact, all we're left with is this:

Count me as one of the skeptics about single-sex education. I have a hunch that in ten years this we’ll look back on this as one of those “What were we thinking?” moments in school reform. But I’m willing to see where this experiment is going. And for the sake of the kids involved, I sure hope I’m wrong.

As a conservative, I champion a variety of educational approaches, knowing that children learn different ways. If one person's child excels in a co-ed environment, then, by all means, support that. But if another person's child does poorly in that environment, why should he/she be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness? Unlike the author, I think in 10 years, there will still be many supporters of single sex education because it works very well for some people. Women's colleges serve a purpose for women. Why should any child be treated differently because he/she is in elementary school?

"There is no sane explanation for all this other than crass political calculation."

2009-12-05T08:37:00.003-06:00

That's Gail Collins complaining that Republicans trying to kill Obamacare are just playing politics.

On Thursday, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat who’s up for election next year, introduced an amendment specifically promising that Medicare recipients would not lose any of their current guaranteed benefits. It passed 100 to 0. Meanwhile, Colorado voters were getting robocalls from John McCain warning that the health care bill was going to cut their “vital Medicare coverage.”

I guess Collins buys the load o' crap from Democrats that Obamacare is about cutting costs, increasing coverage and creating better medical care. Things that Obamacare doesn't do by anyone's estimates.

I'm delighted that Republicans have discovered how to procedurally muck up the works for Democrats trying to push through the budget-busting Obamacare that Americans don't want. It is with incredible gaul that Democrats are hellbent on passing legislation they were not, in fact, elected to pass, all because they want to redistribute income and figure the best way to do it is to create a bunch of programs and tax the hell out of everyone to get it. Anyone who thinks their access to health care and the quality thereof is going to be better once Democrats get through with their "fixes" is an utter fool or won't be relying on it.

A quick side note: does anyone know how the taxes in the various bills will affect temp workers? According to the Labor Department last month, temp workers were among the only job areas that grew. This tells me that many companies are going to use temps before considering hiring full-time employees, since they don't have to pay benefits for temps. But, I assume, under Obamacare, someone will have to pay the penalties for those workers. Any ideas?

What the Safe School Czar Wants Your 7th Grader Reading

2009-12-04T23:15:00.002-06:00

Pretty disgusting. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the sexuality. Not sure this is appropriate for 16-year-olds to read, let alone 12-year-olds.

About that "60%of Americans Support a Public Option" Claim

2009-12-04T22:09:00.002-06:00

Like so many things with Obamacare, that claim is bunk.

The question was not as simple as the press release made it sound: "60 percent of Americans believe a public option should be included in final healthcare legislation." Here is the question:

For this next section, please rate the statements using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means "Strongly Disagree" and 5 means "Strongly Agree". The higher the number, the more you agree with the statement. You can use any number in between. (READ AND ROTATE)

6a. The quality of healthcare delivered in our country will be better 12 months from now.
6b. It will be easier for people to receive care they need 12 months from now.
6c. The value of care delivered will be better 12 months from now.
6d. The total amount of money your family spends on healthcare will decrease 12 months from now.

7a. Do you believe a "Public Option" (like Medicare for everyone) should be included as part of the final legislation that Congress passes into law?
a. Yes
b. No
c. DK/NS
d. Refused

A few points. In the question, the "public option" was described as "like Medicare for everyone." Needless to say, none of the public options that are or have been under discussion fit that description.

Second, whereas the other question allowed people to rank the strength of their feelings on a scale of 1-5, the public option question did not provide for any level of nuance. You're either for it or against it or not sure.

Third, in the results according to Thomson Reuters, 59.9% answered "Yes" and 40.1% answered "No." Does that mean that no one (or at least fewer than one-tenth of one percent of people) didn't know or were not sure? That strikes me as very strange.

As always, the important part of any poll is the way the questions are phrased. If you want an abortion-supporting poll, you describe everything in terms of "choice." If you want a life-supporting poll, you describe everything in terms of the baby. The debate in health care seems to be much the same way. Calling Obamacare "Medicare for everyone" is deceptive. As William Jacobson notes, none of the proposals equate to "Medicare for everyone." Then Jacobson gives some more representative questions that won't be asked:

Do you believe a "Public Option" (like Medicare for everyone) should be included as part of the final legislation that Congress passes into law if it meant you had to wait for medical procedures?

Do you believe a "Public Option" (like Medicare for everyone) should be included as part of the final legislation that Congress passes into law if it meant you had to give up your private insurance?

Do you believe a "Public Option" (like Medicare for everyone) should be included as part of the final legislation that Congress passes into law if it meant that government ran the entire health care system?

We won't see questions like these, of course, since they don't portray Obamacare as free candy for everyone.

It's Hard to Believe the Mouth-Breathers at Media Matters Are This Dumb...

2009-12-04T14:33:00.002-06:00

but their own words seem to justify calling them mouth-breathers.

Reacting to new unemployment data, Rep. John Boehner blamed the crisis on health care reform, clean energy legislation, and the Employee Free Choice Act. However, blaming an ongoing crisis on potential future legislation is akin to saying, "I have heartburn because I'm considering eating tacos tonight."

Is Chris Harris really such a moron that he doesn't think this legislation affects the future hiring practices of businesses? Or does he honestly think that businesses don't figure in the costs of federal regulation and tax policy into hiring decisions? The idea that businesses aren't concerned about the potential growth of the nanny state under Democrats is laughable. Or comes from a man who never ran a business.

Palin Says Birth Certificate a "Fair Question"

2009-12-04T09:46:00.003-06:00

This is gonna drive the moonbats nuts, providing them new and additional information proving Sarah Palin is crazy and all Republicans are in the toilet with her. On a radio interview yesterday, Palin said Barack Obama's birth certificate is a "fair question."

Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of "the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son -- 'You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done."

Personally, I think it's just a cute dig at the batshit craziness of Andrew Sullivan, but that's not how the moonbatosphere is gonna play this.

I've said before that I don't doubt Obama was born where he says he was, but you do have to wonder what else is on the long form that he doesn't want to have to deal with. Otherwise, it would have made sense to just release the thing and get it over with.

The KOS kids salivate at a Palin presidential run. Here is a site almost as crazy as Andrew Sullivan.

More sanity here.

Unemployment at Only 10%

2009-12-04T09:31:00.002-06:00

I guess we're supposed to be happy about this.

The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 10 percent in November as employers cut the smallest number of jobs since the recession began. The better-than-expected job figures are a rare note of encouraging news for the labor market.

Hooray! Sure, we're still losing quarts of blood, but we're just losing them slower. Isn't that good news?

From the Heritage Foundation:

n January 2008, the United States economy employed 138.1 million people and the unemployment rate stood at 4.9%. But the powers in Washington thought deficit spending could boost a slowing economy, so Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) passed and President George Bush signed a $168 billion economic stimulus bill made up of temporary tax cuts and increased mortgage grantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By January 2009 that economic stimulus worked so well that the U.S. economy had lost 3.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. Again the powers in Washington thought deficit spending was the answer, so Speaker Nancy Pelosi and newly minted President Barack Obama dialed up $787 billion in temporary tax cuts and permanent spending increases. Ten months later, the U.S. economy has now shed another 3.59 million jobs and the unemployment rate stand at 10%.

At this rate, the Democrats really will spend us into a Great Depression. But at least they're doing something, right?

The Death of Newspapers

2009-12-03T21:41:00.002-06:00

The inky wretch part of my soul just curled up with a huge pain in the gut after reading this:

As of yesterday, some section editors at all of the company's papers, including The News, will now report directly to Carr's team of sales managers, now referred to as general managers. In short, those who sell ads for A.H. Belo's products will now dictate content within A.H. Belo's products, which is a radical departure from the way newspapers have been run since, oh, forever.

Those sections mentioned in the memo include sports, entertainment, real estate, automotive and travel, among others.The memo doesn't mention Business or Metro by name, but there are references to "health/education" and "retail/finance"; these are not defined in the missive. Says the memo, Carr's sales force will "be working closely with news leadership in product and content development." Executive sports editor Bob Yates and Lifestyles deputy managing editor Lisa Kresl are quoted in the memo enthusiastically signing off on the unconventional marriage; says Kresl, "I'm excited about the idea of working with a business partner on an arts and entertainment segment."

The wall of separation between the business side and the editorial side of newspapers is an institution that prevented business considerations from influencing editorial decisions. This was important for the pursuit of news; sales reps dislike when you do investigative reports on advertisers. I can't imagine how this is going to improve news.

Republican Explains How to Use Senate Rules to Protect Americans from Obamacare

2009-12-03T08:26:00.002-06:00

Senator Judd Gregg has penned a memo laying out for Republicans how to hold up Obamacare in the Senate, and that has moonbats hopping mad.

Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and thus the guardian of the budget process, is perfectly willing to bend the rules to suit his ends, and then bend them the other way when his ends change. Men are not angels. You cannot ask them to deny their self-interest for long. This is why we have rules, and why our rules should be built to prevent people from pulling this kind of crap.

But even Ezra Klein admits that Democrats would do the same in the same position:

They aren't obstructing the legislation so much as the legislative process. If the situation was reversed, it's very likely that Democrats would do the same.

Firedoglake thinks this could be damaging to Republicans. But that would require a majority of Americans to want Obamacare. Which they do not. If anything, it seems to me that this could be a great Republican ad:

Senator X stopped the Democrat juggernaut known as Obamacare, saving the health care you like and allowing you to keep your doctor and benefits! All without new taxes!

I understand the frustration Democrats are feeling right now, knowing that the Senate isn't a pushover like the House is. But there will come a time soon when they will want to obstruct a Republican president again, and then the moonbats will be writing about how prescient the Founding Fathers were to allow these procedural rules.

He Promised Them Everything; They Didn't Expect to Have to Pay For It

2009-12-02T15:17:00.003-06:00

The Left Turns Off Obama

And, even in the health care debate, the under-30 voters are learning that they are targeted -- just like the elderly -- for special punishment in Obama's health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8 percent of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12 percent if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic...

On Capitol Hill, the Democrats seem to have almost abandoned the message war on health care. They are hunkering down and focused on keeping their troops in line. The appeals to party discipline are so strong that one senses that they are prepared to march, in lockstep, over the cliff together.

Democrats are determined to give Americans what they don't want, even if they are booted from office (which they will be, regardless) for it.

30,000 or Nothing?

2009-12-02T14:41:00.005-06:00

I've heard some carping about President Obama's speech last night and his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, with a proposed drawn down of our troops beginning in 2011.

First of all, I am happy President Obama has decided to send 30,000 more troops. General McChrystal requested 40,000, true, but the POTUS' decision to send slightly less doesn't make it nothing, which is a charge I've heard on the radio and read on the internet. It's still a significant number, and shows the president has some commitment to the war.

I am troubled at the timetable for withdrawal Obama set, but he has to give some bone to the liberals in his party, given that they are batshit crazy that he hasn't beaten a hasty retreat already.

I guess what I'm saying is that this proposal is better than I expected from a liberal Democrat president. If there's only half the amount of milk in the glass, I'm looking at it as half full.

Victor Davis Hanson sums it up nicely.

UPDATE: Or Even better:

Last night, President Obama delivered an historic speech to the nation and to the world on his plans for Afghanistan. Here, in sum, is what the president said:

I really don't want to be commander-in-chief, but I'll do it if I have to -- at least for a little while, and then we'll see. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.

“This operation on the backside is very delicate.”

2009-12-01T21:34:00.000-06:00

Beauty queen Solange Magnano 'died for a firmer behind'

“A woman who had everything lost her life to have a slightly firmer behind,” said fashion designer and close friend, Roberto Piazza, in whose runway shows Ms Magnano frequently appeared.

Ms Magnano, who was Miss Argentina in 1994, had gone with a friend to a clinic run by Monica Portnoy, which, according to reports in the Argentinian press, performs an average of 15 such procedures daily. But after complications developed during the operation, which involves injections of the substance Polimetilmetacrilate, she was rushed to hospital with acute respiratory deficiency.

Charles Johnson Explains Why He Parted Ways with Right Wing Nuts

2009-12-01T14:51:00.002-06:00

Only to show what a nut he is.

His list includes broadbrush smears at virtually every possible conservative person, group, or political philosophy and jumbles any criticism of President Obama with witch doctor pictures. I'm not kidding. Just ask him.

Of course, he'd be pissed if you pointed out the same behaviors for eight years by the guys he's identifying with now. But that was then, I suppose.

Jules Crittenden explains why Johnson went batshit crazy.

William Jacobson puts it in a nutshell:

Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs says he's parting ways with the right because people who disagree with him are fascist, racist, homophobic, white supremacists.

That about covers it.

Tom Maguire notes that Johnson used to be an Islamophobic hate site according to his new friends. But that was sooo 2004.

Robert Stacy McCain revels in being castigated by name, then explains the madness of King Charles.

Much more at Memeorandum.

It's All About Him

2009-12-01T12:32:00.002-06:00

President Obama's speech on Afghanistan to pre-empt A Charlie Brown Christmas.

What is up with this guy? Has he no shame???

I am, of course, only half joking here. Certainly, the president's speech is important, but the timing couldn't be worse.

Short Takes

2009-11-30T13:43:00.002-06:00

7 Stories Obama Doesn't Want You to Read

Jules Crittenden live mocks Michael Moore's letter to the President. Hilarious.

Americans don't want Obamacare. Not that Democrats give a damn what those yokels think.

PBS is changing the NewsHour in order to save it. Interesting look at how PBS is adjusting to the economic hard times. Orrin Judd has said that MSM could one day consist of government-funded organizations like PBS and NPR, with bloggers and citizen journalists on the outside.

Who Is Blind to Facts?

2009-11-29T23:28:00.002-06:00

Josh Marshall unconsciously contradicts his own premise in his analysis of why people think what they think.

Do our beliefs form the basis of our partisan and ideological affiliations? Or is it vice versa?

There's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.

This is a strange argument to make, given all the recent revelations of global warming believers' tampering with scientific evidence to achieve the results they desire. Surely, more than anything, that shows hostility to science.