Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Yearly Kos convention?

Hat tip to Sondra K for this awesome photo!

The Kos krazies eanjoy their annual kook-athon

April 10, 2007 Posted by | humor, moonbats | Leave a Comment

The left not always keen on "scientific consensus"

From Reason:

Environmentalists constantly reference the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate.

“You have the strongest consensus we have seen in the science community about global climate change since the conclusion that tobacco caused lung cancer,” asserts Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Kevin Knobloch. Greenpeace also argues, “There is, in fact, a broad and overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by human activities.” And Friends of the Earth has gone after Exxon Mobil because it “has repeatedly attempted to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and actively resisted attempts to limit carbon dioxide emissions through law.”

Clearly when it comes to climate change, environmentalists righteously wrap themselves in the cloak of scientific “consensus.” They excoriate scientists and others who doubt that man-made climate change will necessarily be disastrous, accusing some of being essentially paid liars for the fossil fuel industry. But for many environmentalist groups not all scientific consensuses are equal. Consider the case of genetically enhanced crops.

“GMOs [genetically modified organisms] should not be released into the environment as there is not adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health,” warns Greenpeace. “Genetic engineering is imprecise and unpredictable. But most testing is carried out by the very biotech companies that have the most to gain from results that say GM food is safe,” says Friends of the Earth. The Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledges that “there have been no serious environmental impacts-certainly no catastrophes-associated with the use of engineered crops in the United States.” In addition, the UCS admits, “No major human health problems have emerged in connection with genetically modified food crops, which have been consumed by significant numbers of U.S. consumers.” In fact, no–not just “no major”–human health problems have emerged. Nevertheless, the UCS concludes “the scientific evidence available to date, while encouraging, does not support the conclusion that genetically modified crops are intrinsically safe for health or the environment.” What does “intrinsically safe” mean? On what evidence can the UCS conclude that even conventional crops are “intrinsically safe”?

The scientific consensus about current varieties of genetically improved crops stands in stark contrast to these dire environmentalist assertions.
…
In any case, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that current varieties of genetically enhanced crops are safe to eat and don’t pose unusual risks to the natural environment. But that isn’t stopping Greenpeace from waging a global “Say no to genetic engineering” campaign or the Friends of the Earth from demanding a GM Freeze. Perhaps the idea of scientific consensus is not all that it’s cracked up to be. After all, scientific consensus does not mean “certain truth.” Whatever the current consensus of any scientific issue is can change in the light of new research. Nevertheless, environmentalist ideologues accuse those who question the climate change consensus of bad faith and worse. But aren’t they exhibiting a similar bad faith when they reject the broad scientific consensus on genetically modified crops?

There you have it. The environutbars are telling us that scientific “consensus” exists as it relates to global “warming” (even though it doesn’t), and as such, we should accept that and move accordingly. These same nutbars are the ones telling us that the scientific consensus as it relates to genetically enhanced food is to be ignored or, at the very least, mistrusted. Apparently, “scientific consensus” only matters when your worldview is being advanced.

By the way, need I remind you that “scientific consensus” once held that the Earth was (a) the center of the galaxy and (b) as flat as a John Kerry joke?

April 10, 2007 Posted by | global warming, hypocrisy | Leave a Comment

Night & Day

From Newsbusters:

One week apart, “The Early Show” provided very different segments about 2008 presidential contenders. The April 2 edition provided a very glowing, positive review of the candidates. The April 9 edition was far more critical of the contenders. Why the difference? The former reviewed the Democrats. The latter reviewed the Republicans.

On April 2 Hannah Storm discussed Hillary Clinton’s “amazing [fund raising] numbers.” John Harris of Politico.com agreed noting “they are incredibly impressive numbers.” Though Democratic rival John Edwards raised a much smaller $14 million, Storm wanted to know if the former vice presidential nominee saw a “spike in donations” after his wife announced her breast cancer is not curable.

One week later, host Hannah Storm high lighted that McCain announced “lower fund-raising numbers than his rivals,” though his $12.5 million is not far behind Senator Edwards’s $14 million. Storm also inquired whether McCain “lost some credibility when it comes to the war” after his recent positive statements regarding Iraqi progress.

After McCain, “The Early Show” co-host moved on to another Republican with alleged problems, Rudy Giuliani and his association with Bernard Kerik. Storm noted Kerik’s alleged ties to the mob and asked “how problematic” that is. Harris added that voters may “find some of the details…less than attractive.” The transcripts both from April 2 and April 9 are below.

The transcripts are available at Newsbusters for you to see for yourselves. One week, flowery coverage of the Dem nominees. A mere seven days later, critical coverage of the GOP nominees. What a difference a week makes.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

April 10, 2007 Posted by | media bias, Night and Day | Leave a Comment

Dems’ 40% better than W’s 40%?

Over the last couple of years, Dubya’s approval ratings have hovered around 35% – 45% at various times. The MSM was all over that like Barney Frank on a cabana boy, touting how poor a rating of around 40% truly is. Until now. From MSNBC, the headline is amazing: “Public approval of Congress is rising, poll finds”

Public approval for Congress is at its highest level in a year as Democrats mark 100 days in power and step up their confrontation with President Bush over his handling of the Iraq War, the issue that overshadows all others.

Yet for all their eagerness to challenge Bush, congressional Democrats so far have failed to attract significant support among independents, a group that helped propel them to power in last fall’s elections and now appears more strongly opposed to the war than the general public.
…
Overall approval for Congress is 40 percent. The survey shows Bush’s approval ratings remain in the mid-30 percent range, that a striking 39 percent strongly disapproves his handling of foreign policy and the war on terror, and that the public has scant hopes that the president and Congress can work together to solve the country’s problems.
…
(You have to dig deep into the story to get to the following part. – Ed.)
…
Forty percent of those surveyed said they approve the job Congress is doing, up from 25 percent approval registered for the Republican majority in the weeks leading to last fall’s elections. Disapproval of Congress totals 57 percent.

The public opinion split is identical on the issue of Democratic handling of Iraq — 40 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove.

Now I did go to college at Florida State, so you’ll have to bear with me here. (Pulling out slide rule…multiply by pi…carry the one…radius squared…) OK, thanks for your patience. It appears to me that a 57% disapproval rating is more noteworthy than a 40% approval rating, since rumor has it that “57 > 40″ is an accurate statement. Think about it this way: if the Democrat Congress had an approval rating of 1%, and the next week it was 3%, the headlines would be touting “Congressional approval ratings triples in one week!”

Nope…no liberal media bias!

April 10, 2007 Posted by | media bias, polls | Leave a Comment

"The left blackballs the Black Caucus"

From Opinion Journal:

In the battle for control of the Democratic Party, the George Soros-MoveOn.org crowd is used to getting its way. So it’s revealing to watch the consternation in those precincts to the Congressional Black Caucus decision to co-sponsor a pair of Presidential primary debates this year with Fox News.

Liberal activists are livid, to say the least, with one anti-Fox pressure group condemning the Black Caucus for “dancing with the devil.” Color of Change, a coalition of black online activists, says the collaboration promulgates “bigoted, hate-filled worldviews.” Markos Moulitsas, the DailyKos front man, calls the CBC “corrupt and compromised” for “doing Fox’s bidding.” His implication is that Black Caucus Members have somehow been bought off, though there is no evidence to support the slur. This is to say nothing of some of the more vicious blog chatter, much of it carrying racial connotations.

All of this induced Howard Dean’s Democratic National Committee to announce last week that it won’t “sanction” the CBC debates. John Edwards also repeated his profiles-in-courage act by announcing that he won’t participate in the CBC-Fox debate. This follows last month’s pander when he, the Nevada Democratic Party and Nevada Senator Harry Reid knelt before MoveOn.org demands that another scheduled primary debate co-hosted by Fox be called off. And yesterday Barack Obama bowed to the mob by declaring he also won’t attend; so much for the Senator’s promise to change the tenor of our politics.

The Internet vigilantes would like to drum Fox News out of polite society, but it’s clear from the Black Caucus episode that this isn’t really about Fox. This is about who runs the Democratic Party. Ever since they came close to nominating Howard Dean for President in 2004, left-wing Web activists have tried to punish any Democrat who dares to step out of line. They tried to run Joe Lieberman out of the Party for his views on Iraq, and they want to banish California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher because she’s voted for free trade agreements.

The pitchfork carriers now want to tell elected Democratic officials which journalists they can appear in public with. Messrs. Edwards and Obama are bowing to those orders because they’ve decided they can only defeat Hillary Clinton by running to her left. Of course if by some miracle one of them wins the nomination, he’ll be known as the candidate from MoveOn.org in the general election too. Republicans will have fun with that one.

Yes, but as incompetent as the GOP is these days, I don’t have any faith in their ability to parlay that alliance between the Dem nominee and their moonbat masters into electoral victory. Continuing:

The Black Caucus has a different agenda, which is to win elections and hold the Democratic majority in Congress. A spokesman for the CBC Institute, which organizes these educational functions, says the goal is to reach the “broadest audience possible.” This seems sensible enough, especially because Fox’s market research shows that more than half its audience is Democrats and independents.

So much for that “it’s a Republican network” myth. Continuing:

In fact, the caucus went out of its way to be, well, fair and balanced. It is co-sponsoring two primary debates on Fox, one Democratic and one Republican, and is doing the same on CNN. In 2003, the CBC also joined with Fox News on two Democratic debates that came off successfully. (This page has its own weekend show on Fox.)

The CBC deserves credit for not capitulating to ideological intimidation–and for refusing to take orders from affluent and angry liberals who’ve never run for office. Too bad the candidates have weaker knees.

Too bad for the CBC that they’re still seen as chattle by the moonbat plantation owners.

April 10, 2007 Posted by | Fox News, Hillary, John Edwards, moonbats, Obama | Leave a Comment

The CNN reporter who mocked and laughed at McCain

Recall the Drudge story last week regarding the CNN reporter (Michael Ware) who taunted McCain, and that the story appeared to have been debunked? If not, here’s the reminder. Anywho, that story seems to have reared its head again. From Hot Air:

This makes three independent reports of distracting chuckling during the presser: Drudge’s original much-maligned story, which accused Michael Ware by name of “heckling;” AFP’s story from last Tuesday, which cited “giggling” by an unnamed reporter; and now J-Mac himself, who appeared yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio show to do a little rebunking of Raw Story’s debunking. Hannity volunteers Ware’s name and McCain doesn’t correct him, but even in McCain’s case the knowledge is secondhand: apparently it was Lindsey Graham and the rest of the contingent who noticed the disturbance while McCain was answering someone’s question.

Just keeping you up to speed. Until someone puts this directly to Graham, we won’t know for sure.

Maybe Drudge wasn’t wrong after all. Maybe he was. Considering that Ware has done the heckling and eye-rolling and leftist editorializing before, it’s not hard to fathom he did it here, too. At any rate, you have information to make your own minds up.

April 10, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, McCain, media bias | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers