February 20, 2012

Climate ‘Scientist’ Admits to Purloining Docs, Still Needs To Say Who Wrote the Fabricated One

Filed under: Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:56 pm

At the UK Guardian:

Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents
Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science

A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week’s sensational expose.

In the latest revelation, Peter Gleick, a water scientist and president of the Pacific Institute who has been active in the climate wars, apologised on Monday for using a false name to obtain materials from Heartland, a Chicago-based think tank with a core mission of dismissing climate change.

“My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated – to attack climate science,” Gleick wrote in a piece for Huffington Post.

Well, that’s nice, but Gleick still needs to identify who wrote the “two-page strategy memo” which Megan McArdle at the Atlantic says doesn’t pass the authenticity stench test, let alone the smell test.

The smart money appears to be on Gleick being its author.


UPDATE: Much more at Watt’s Up With That.

SI’s Peter King ‘Amazed’ That Jeremy Lin Was ‘Peppered With Slurs’ By Opponents and at Ivy League Road Games

ESPNLIN_largeDuring his first hour today, Rush mentioned the reaction of Peter King at Sports illustrated in King’s “Monday Morning Quarterback” collection to a paragraph in the magazine’s cover story on Jeremy Lin, the New York Knicks’ point guard who has broken through from obscurity to phenom during the past two weeks. What King wrote is indeed an interesting giveaway of what I believe is a common but unsupportable media perspective, namely that students at and graduates of elite upper-echelon universities like those in the Ivy League are presumptively free of overt racism, because, well, they’re all so enlightened.

Uh, no. As Pablo S. Torre reveals in said cover story:

Lin would brush off racist jeers from opposing fans (“Sweet and sour pork!”) and Ivy League opponents (he was called “Ch—” on the court) to average 16.4 points, 4.5 assists and 2.4 steals as a senior.

How quaint (and admirable) that Torre chose not to finish the slur word. In the past few days, ESPN’s repeated employment of the full word (“Chink”) has blasted Torre’s attempt at decorum to bits.

Here’s King’s reaction to what Torre found:


Amy Contrada Deconstructs Mitt Romney’s CPAC Speech

Filed under: Activism,Education,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:28 am

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/RomneyNo0808Friday, Mass Resistance leader and Mitt Romney’s Deception author Amy Contrada tore apart Mitt Romney’s CPAC speech piece by piece.

In the speech (quoting Amy’s opening list), Romney made patently false claims in the following areas:

  • His unconstitutional implementation of ”gay marriage”
  • His failure to check judicial activism while simultaneously preaching against it
  • His weak argument for traditional marriage
  • His weak leadership in Massachusetts during the “gay marriage” crisis
  • His his record on abortion
  • His flip-flops on “emergency contraception” (morning-after pill) and Catholic Hospitals
  • RomneyCare, abortions, and mandated contraception coverage
  • His phony abstinence program in the schools
  • His phony defense of Catholic Charities in the homosexual adoptions scandal

Contrada’s critique is absolutely devastating (HT to a Steven Baldwin email).

Key pulls (but please carve out the time to read the whole thing):

Mitt Romney’s speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb. 10, 2012) was at best full of half-truths and misrepresentations. What a mistake he made, inviting scrutiny of his record on constitutional and social issues as Governor of Massachusetts.

ROMNEY CLAIMED: “The state’s supreme court inexplicably found a right to same-sex marriage in our constitution.”

The TRUTH: The Court did so find, but Governor Romney followed their lead and unconstitutionally implemented “gay marriage” without legislative authorization. He treated the “inexplicable” opinion as law.

ROMNEY CLAIMED: “I pushed for a stay of the decision.”

The TRUTH: He wrongly accepted the Court as the ultimate authority, instead of doing his duty to act as a check on the Court.

ROMNEY CLAIMED: He “fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution.”

The TRUTH: Romney had opposed the only real chance for an amendment in 2002, and later attempts were poorly worded and doomed to failure. He offered little public support or leadership.

ROMNEY CLAIMED: “I fought for abstinence education in our public schools.”

The TRUTH: It was not an “abstinence only” approach; it did not say “wait until marriage”; it was “LGBT-friendly”; it lasted only two years; it included “peer teaching” by 12-14 year olds; and it was limited to very few middle schools in the state.

… While running for Governor, Romney told Planned Parenthood in April 2002 that he would “support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools.” (Helman) This “comprehensive” sex education is just what his supposed abstinence program did.

ROMNEY CLAIMED: “And I defended the Catholic Church’s right to serve their community in ways that were consistent with their conscience through adoption programs that placed children in a home with a mom and a dad.”

The TRUTH: … This claim is the height of grandstanding and hypocrisy.

That final assertion concerning one topic can and should be made about Romney’s entire campaign and candidacy.

A Brief Brown County Encounter

Filed under: Ohio Politics,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:50 am

There I was, standing near the front of the room on the stage right side of the Georgetown Elementary School multipurpose room Friday night, guarding my spot for recording Rick Santorum’s upcoming speech, when up came ORPINO (Ohio Republican Party In Name Only) Chairman Kevin DeWine.

DeWine, to what I believe was the surprise of most, came down from Columbus for Santorum’s speech. Someone pointed him out to me shortly after his arrival.

He sought yours truly out; I was going to leave him alone. The event wasn’t about him, or me, or us.

I’m not the best at reconstructing conversations, but I can say that these things occurred:

  • After he greeted me, I asked him when he is going to resign. He said he isn’t going to.
  • He said that he is with Governor John Kasich “99%” of the time.
  • I told him, as I have asserted several times here at BizzyBlog, that a state party chairman owes his governor unconditional loyalty.
  • Kevin said he disagrees.
  • As he walked away (again: his move), I suggested that he tell that to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Sorry, Kev. Barring criminal or serious ethical matters, a state party chairman does owe his governor unconditional loyalty. As another gentleman has pointed out several times, it’s hypocritical to simultaneously claim that defeating Barack Obama in this most important of swing states in the fall is Priority One while seriously and publicly dividing the party in a “you’re either with me or against me” manner while wasting substantial amounts of scarce party resources. Someone who really believed the former would not be engaging in the latter, and would instead step down.

But Kevin DeWine won’t do that, which is why some of his biggest fans in the State of Ohio right now are in the fever-swamp left.

I’m going to keep comments off at this post. If you have any, send them directly to me.

Explaining Santorumentum

Filed under: Economy,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:10 am

SantorumBrownCo021712I submitted my column on Rick Santorum’s Friday Brown County appearance in the wee hours this morning, and ended up with a leftover which I want to put up now.

It’s a list, beyond the few already cited in the column which are I believe are more important (which of course will have to wait) of many of the reasons for his remarkable surge before and since the three February 7 contests in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri:

  1. Mitt Romney’s ignorant comment about the poor and the “safety net,” which in the real world is all too often a demotivating trap.
  2. Romney’s simultaneously weird and foolish self-identification as a “serious conservative” at CPAC.
  3. Gingrich’s bitter post-South Carolina implosion.
  4. Romney’s failure, 17 years after Ted Kennedy whipped him in the 1994 U.S. Senate race on the very same issue, to adequately defend and detail his record at Bain Capital.
  5. Unhinged defenses of the most indefensible aspects of Romney’s record, i.e., RomneyCare and same-sex marriage, by people who should (and I believe do) know better like Ann Coulter (literally cheerleading for RomneyCare) and Maggie Gallagher (falsely claiming that he did all he could to stop same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) that anyone with knowledge of the facts saw through.
  6. Rick Perry’s withdrawal, which ultimately benefited Santorum in the wake of Gingrich’s problems.
  7. Talk radio hosts, including Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, making their distaste for Romney and his cheerleaders and their appreciation of Santorum a bit more clear.
  8. Finally, and arguably the most directly helpful item to Santorum, the Obama administration’s religious freedom-crushing rule requiring first-dollar coverage of all contraceptive and post-fertilization abortifacient pre-implantation pharmaceuticals and technologies, even by institutions which are morally opposed to some or all of them. The Catholic bishops’ response (“HHS Must Rescind the Mandate”) to the administration’s “compromise” which was nothing of the sort made the battle lines clear.

I believe that the most important element of Santorum’s surge (perhaps not the most influential, but in my opinion definitely the most important) is his message, which I explain in the column, which will go up in the next day or two (or three).

Related: At the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, via Jim Taranto —

If you’re a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, “The Case for Polarized Politics,” has a winning track record for the GOP. “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”

That’s for sure.

Those who break out in hives (that would include you, Mitch Daniels) when anyone asserts that social issues are fundamental and foundational should know that Santorum’s message, explained more fully in the column, melds and unifies the social and economic aspects of conservatism and frames them around our founding documents.

What Santorum is articulating is impressive and important. Stay tuned.

Monday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (022012)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:15 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.


Positivity: A lifetime of learning to trust God

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:56 am

From Springfield, Virginia:

Feb 19, 2012 / 11:02 am

When you see Bob Ward, it’s safe to assume his wife, Beverly, isn’t far behind.

The nickname of “Boberly,” given to the couple by accident during a wedding toast 47 years ago, has proven throughout the years to be a fitting appellation for the two local Catholics who rarely spend time apart.

The Wards, parishioners of St. Raymond of Peñafort Parish in Springfield, Va. taught religious education together, attend daily Mass together, fostered 18 newborns together and pray daily together. They are regular speakers at Conferences for the Engaged, hosted by the Diocese of Arlington, Va. Office for Family Life, where they draw on life experiences to help counsel those preparing for marriage.

“Nobody sees us without us being together,” Bob said. If they do get separated in a crowd, Beverly added, they have to be careful not to repeat the same stories to the same people.

As strong a unit as Bob and Beverly are, it’s important to acknowledge they started off as two individuals from very different backgrounds.

Beverly grew up in Junction City, Kan., as a cradle Catholic. A small-town girl, she loved the saints and dreamed of being a cloistered nun. Bob, born in Spartanburg, S.C., lived around the world with his Army father and grew up as a staunch Protestant. Bob attended Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., before he, too, joined the Army.

What the two had in common, though, was their devotion to their particular faith traditions. This, Bob said, was what attracted him most to Beverly. (Not to mention, Bob added, that “she was gorgeous.”)

When Bob was transferred from Fort Riley, Kan., where he and Beverly had met, the two kept in touch via letters. They learned that, though they had different faith backgrounds, they had similar values.

“There was just something so special, and I think through correspondence we really got to know each other because we wrote a lot,” Bob said. As they got more serious, they began praying their one common prayer — the Our Father — after speaking every night.

After eight months apart — while Bob was in Germany — he and Beverly were reunited.

“I was so smitten that … they sent me on the advanced party (back to the United States),” Bob said. “They knew that I had to be (with Beverly).”

The couple married Aug. 8, 1964. …

Go here for the rest of the story.