Happy Presidents Day

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 11:18 am

Being self-employed, I’m wondering what it’s all about. GR schools are closed for winter break!
Where’s my paid ski vacation with one side order of avalanche?
Where’s my umbrella drink on some sandy Nevis beach–fighting off home invaders?
Where’s my cruise on the SS NoraVirus?
Maybe I’m better off just sitting here pounding at the Polish piano….ctrl>alt>delete……and PAZout!

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 11:19 am

See NJ first!

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 11:21 am

Yeah! I wanna go sailing with Somali pirates!

POSTED BY Conan | February 20, 2012 @ 11:24 am

You maybe better off with the Somali Pirates (are they National or American league?) than the Italian cruise ships…

Today is just another work day for me. At least there was absolutely no one on the roads as I drove into work this morning. I do remember a time when both George and Abe had separate holidays ten days apart for their respective birthdays. Here is a quick question for you: who was the first American president?

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 11:28 am

Alfred E. Newman on the “What me Worry?” ticket.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Just wasted some time looking up the 5 worst presidents. From a 2010 US News & World Report survey:

5) GW Bush
4) Franklin Pierce
3) Warren G. Harding
2) James Buchanan
1) Andrew Johnson

POSTED BY Sandy | February 20, 2012 @ 11:43 am

I have always wondered why office workers and teachers as well as others get the day off, but heavan-help us if retqil stores closed for the day and give the workers a day off. Before retiring, I even had to work on the 4th of July ! We were closed on New Years Day, December 24th at noon and Dec. 25. That was it.

POSTED BY Conan | February 20, 2012 @ 11:44 am

Did they say who were the five best, Kit? My favorite has always been Millard Fillmore, our 13th President. In 1850 Fillmore sent Admiral Perry to open relations with the Japanese. They responded in 1941. Millard also installed the first bathtub in the White House, which was a major step for political hygiene. He also ran for President again on the Know-Nothing platform, which makes him the first honest politician.

The first American President was Abraham Lincoln: the 15 Presidents before him were born prior to 1776.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 11:49 am

From memory, Conan: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. The lists vary from survey to survey…
Can’t say I know much about Franklin Pierce, and Theodore Roosevelt’s inclusion on the best list surprises me, but I am no historian.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 20, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

kit, your list of the best presidents sounds biased. Pitiful reliance on the views the liberal lamestream media. Real Americans KNOW that there was only one great president, Ronald Reagan, but, okay, George Washington was pretty good too.
What a horrible list otherwise – Lincoln, the man who emasculated the Old South, FDR – the commie socialist, Thomas Jefferson – the womanizer, and Theodore Roosevelt, the tree hugger. For shame.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Listened to the Leonard Lopate show on my way to get lunch — he was interviewing Tim Weiner who wrote a book about the FBI. Two factoids: the FBI gathered enough evidence to impeach Ronald Reagan over the sale of arms to Iranian rebels, and the skimming of profits to support the Contras, but there wasn’t the political will to carry it out. Also, the director of the FBI told President GW Bush that unless the administration made their wiretaps legal, he (The Director) would resign, along with the Attorney General and 6 people under him. A constitutional crisis.

Wonder why nobody names their kid Millard? It would make a very good non-threatening name for a bully breed dog.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 20, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

Too bad about Millard, kit, but even Grover Cleveland is getting short shrift today.
A guy from Baristaville —and Bloomfield Avenue, no less.
The man makes it to the White House, twice, and not even a passing comment! Terrible.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

And not even consecutive terms! I just learned that this morning in my presidential searches. But I have seen his thorax in a jarat the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia. It was removed in secret on the presidential yacht.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

Thorax in a jar at…

POSTED BY Iceman | February 20, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

How can Obama and Carter not head the list of worst Presidents?

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 20, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

Because, Iceman, to do so, you’d have to ignore any and all presidential bungling from 1789 to 1976, from 1980 to 1992, and from 2000 to 2008.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 20, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

I am feeling so patriotic today that I went out and bought myself a brand new Lincoln! Ta dum-dum. Happy President’s Day to all. If you have the day off, great. If not, rest assured you will have an easy commute.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 20, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

Careful, Ice. Your partisanship is showing.

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

A Presidents-themed post featuring Ben Franklin‽‽‽‽‽

PAZ – you started us off well, thanks for the chuckles

Conan – John Tyler (our most prolific president who, last I heard, still has two grandchildren living) was born in 1790.

Kit – I am not a fan of such lists, and I usually disagree with the rankings, but Wikipedia has a page which does a nice job of covering the various rankings of the Presidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

(Presidents are one of my many interests)

POSTED BY walleroo | February 20, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

That’s awful, Sandy, having to work at a job like that.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

Roo….Awful? Sandy’s retired with a garage full of cars and ordering a new special model!?…..Where are you? Scratching in the dirt under Liz’s porch and fooling yourself into believing you got it good?

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

Roo thrives on empathy.

POSTED BY walleroo | February 20, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

My bad, Sandy, I thought you were complaining about having to work too hard. But you’re retired, how wonderful for you. Mazel tov.

POSTED BY Conan | February 20, 2012 @ 3:57 pm

Carl — they interviewed one of Tyler’s grandkids (still living in VA and about 80 years old, I think) on CBS Sunday Morning (I think) this past weekend. His father was 80-something when he was born, and Tyler was in his late 60′s when his grandson’s father was born. Three generations spanning four centuries is pretty amazing.

It is true that Grover Clevland was born and lived in Joisey, but his political experience was mostly in New York State: sherriff then mayor of Buffalo, and then Governor of New York.

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

Conan,

I’m sorry I missed that, although his grandfather would be close to the bottom of my list – were I to make one. On the subject of Presidential Rankings, I think I agree with what President Kennedy (Presidents were one of his many interests as well) said in 1962:

No one has a right to grade a President — even poor James Buchanan — who has not sat in his chair, examined the mail and information that came across his desk, and learned why he made his decisions.

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 4:48 pm

And speaking of President Kennedy’s many interests, has anyone read the account of his seduction of the 19-year-old White House intern from New Jersey? Wow! – say what you want about Jack Kennedy, but the man was smooth as glass…

And say what you want about Republican Presidents, at least their mistresses know how to keep a secret…

[Note - Nothing in this post should be construed as condoning such behavior.]

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

Although I agree with you, Carl, that surveys (especially ones with very recent presidents) don’t mean that much, they’re still fun, and I personally would put GWB up there with the worst. Future generations will have to weigh in. I think it was the survey you linked me to which put William Henry Harrison among the worst, because with only 31 days in office, no one could ascribe any positive accomplishments to his presidency. I’d rank a 10 year war sold to congress falsely as a worst-president qualification. And JFK doesn’t belong anywhere near the top, Chris Matthews’ shameless pitches notwithstanding. As far as Republican Presidents’ mistresses keeping secrets: what makes you think any of them had mistresses?

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

OK I just googled presidential mistresses: James Garfield, Warren Harding & Dwight Eisenhower (!)

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 20, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

Surprise, Kit. GWB had one too. Someone I know from Dallas had a little inside scoop about the lucky little lady getting a very nice property at the beach and a serious talkin’ to about what would happen if that ever became public.

POSTED BY Sandy | February 20, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

Yes, I am retired – but……why not? After all… I AM age 65 !!
Yes, I own 6 cars, and possibly one on the way ….
But…. I mised alot in my lefe, becuause I was ALWAYS working !
9Am to 9PM M-F AND 9AM to 6 PM on Saturdays.

Parties? I was not there….Movies ? Perhaps 3 or 4 a year, at the most.
I saved money because when I was not working…..ALL THE STORES WERE CLOSED !

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

Kit,

To me, any ranking that would include WHH (or Garfield for that matter) is probably not worth the paper it was printed on.

I would agree that it is especially difficult to judge recent presidents. And the problem with judging historical presidents is that we are, to a great extent, at the mercy of presidential historians – say what you want about the 43 men who have served as President, the least of them (however you choose to rank them) probably had/has more integrity than your average presidential historian.

As far as Republican Presidents’ mistresses keeping secrets: what makes you think any of them had mistresses?

Ancedotal evidence and educated conjecture leads me to believe that (before Watergate), all but a very few of our presidents have had mistresses.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 20, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

Sandy – retired at 65!!! My social security benefits won’t even start until I’m 66 and a half and that’s if I ever see anything. My husband is a few years younger and he has to wait until he’s 67. And we’re not young!

POSTED BY Carl Bergmanson | February 20, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

And I’m not saying that the ones after Watergate have behaved any better, I think it’s just as likely that the changes in modern journalism have forced them to be more discreet…

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 20, 2012 @ 6:06 pm

Presidential pecadillos pander to prurient political pundits.

POSTED BY walleroo | February 20, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

Those are long hours, Sandy. I hope you have many many years to come of your well earned leisure. My retirement plan is simple: work until i drop dead. But it’s not so bad as it sounds. I like my work.

POSTED BY Sandy | February 20, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

“” But it’s not so bad as it sounds. I like my work.”" That’s wonderful.
I hated my work, after rhe the fist couple of years. But… the money was okay, and I caught on quickly, and I just got “comfy” in doing something…I’d like to believe…..Doing something well done….Once I got married, more than once – my wife said she felt like a widow, at times. Home alone every night, all day Saturday & all holidays…I was not around.

POSTED BY Sandy | February 20, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

What kinda Lincoln did you buy, today, Martta Rose ?
Safe Rides !!!

POSTED BY raeven | February 20, 2012 @ 7:56 pm

jerseygurl, I’m fairly sure SS will be dried up or seriously depleted by the time I’m “of age”
But given my employment in a low-paying, fading industry, I expect “retirement” to me will involve working in whatever fast food co will take me as a struggling 80-year old

POSTED BY PAZ | February 20, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

Sandy, enjoy your retirement….You earned it!! Stay healthy & happy….Keep laughing! How about showing one of your classics in the GR Memorial day parade?

POSTED BY mimimichalski | February 20, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

What a fun thread… yes, Cleveland should get some credit, being born in our area. Have any of you gone to his birthplace and had the grand tour of the little house there? Quite interesting! Kit, as the owner of two rescued pit bull terriers, I love the idea of naming a bully dog “Millard.” If we ever get a boy (ours are both girls) that will top my list of names!

POSTED BY bebopgun | February 21, 2012 @ 8:08 am

Thank you Sandy for the reminder why it’s important to have public holidays.

POSTED BY Sandy | February 21, 2012 @ 9:48 am

Paz, they are not:
very old
Classics
from the 20s/30s/40/50/ or 60s

What they are is very RARE cusrom made cars, made in extremely small numbers. I have 3 ASC McLarens, one 1986 and two 1990s, a “One-Off” 1993 Cadillac of which only one like this, was ever made, One 1986 Lincoln Continential Mark VI factory made in PINK and given to the Playboy Mag. Playmate of the year (I recently sold this car) ~ and a 1968 Imperial Convertible Parade Car. (4,000 miles on her at 43 years of age.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 10:07 am

All of these years I never realized that the trains ran a “holiday schedule” on President’s Day. Since we were around, the plan was to take the kids in to the MET for the day. Well, in Montclair “holiday schedule” means NO TRAINS. Who knows, maybe something from Bay, but basically no service. No traffic, so driving in was easy, but we really ought to have some sort of decent weekend and holiday service like the rest of NJ does.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 10:21 am

To Iceman’s earlier point, Obama has, IMHO, overtaken Carter as the worst president of my lifetime, any he still has some time left on the clock. This seems abundantly clear to our pals in Iran, who have put their nuclear programs and general sabre rattling into hyperdrive, eerily reminiscent of the wacky Carter era. Our enemies sense weakness and fecklessness in our leadership, and they view the remaining months (if there is a god) of Obama’s tenure in office as a window of opportunity to create as much mayhem and unrest for the U.S. and our allies as they can before a new sheriff arrives in town. I still remember the Iranian hostage crisis dragging on and on, until about 30 seconds after Reagan came into office. The alacrity with which the hostages were released was astonishing and instructive as to how the power of the perception of strong leadership is viewed by those who would threaten us.

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 10:37 am

The “alacrity” can be accounted for, according to former Iranian president Bani-Sadr, by the deal made between the Reagan camp and the Iranian leaders, which of course later flowered into the arms for hostages debacle.

Is this a proven fact? No, and it likely won’t be, if ever, until more time has passed. But that fear of big bad Ronnie did not deter radical Islamists from kidnapping Americans in Beirut, several of whom were still held when Reagan left office. It didn’t seem to deter Hezbollah from blowing the Marine barracks in Lebanon, resulting in the pullout of those troops and the refusal to join the French — yes, THE FRENCH! — inbombing suspected terrorist sites in the Bakka valley. The Iranians did what they did because it suited their purposes, plain and simple. I’m sure that you and others would love to believe that Reagan had them shaking in their boots, but I doubt that is the case.

As for today’s Iranian crisis please tell us how president deadeye would proceed?

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 10:44 am

So Iran started building the bomb when, 2008? Nothing was done before that, right?

Too bad we were a little involved in an unnessary war the next country over that killed thousands of our troops, hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and emptied our treasury to really pay attention. But its ok, because if Santorum gets his way, we’ll have a do-over.

People who say Obama is the worst president are either partisan hacks, or were in a coma in 2000-2008.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 10:51 am

Oh and by the way, deadeye in comparing Reagan to Carter, only one of them sold weapons to Iran. And surprise, out come the hostages during his administration.

That Oliver North is a hero on the right tells you all you need to know about their hypocrisy.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:06 am

Cro, The radical Islamist agenda arguably already had a fairly big shot in the arm when the Shah was allowed to fall under Carter’s watch to be replaced by a mild mannered, unthreatening, mullah in the person of Ayatollah Khomeini. Remember those calming pronouncements that the new regime in Iran would be much more popular and supportive of human rights than the Shah’s had been, with it’s SAVAK security apparatus that regularly trundled the radicals off before they could implement their agenda and derail a prosperous, western leaning ally. Remember sitting slackjawed in front of the television watching the Iranian revolution and the implementation of theocracy. None of us had ever witnessed anything as outrageous and outlandish before. Even the least critical thinkers among us realized that we had traded the “human rights” of a radical minority for the collective rights and freedom of the vast majority of Iranian citizens. Nice job.Unfortunately the genie was now out of the bottle as far as radical Islam goes, and those newly empowered “students” are the ones that went on to cause grief to our troops and their less enlightened neighbors. How about the human rights legacy of that seminal transition of power, viewed with the benefit of hindsight? ? Be honest. Poor benighted Carter didn’t know how explosive the situation was when he basically handed Khomeini the lit match that touched off a conflagration that continues to burn today. And I still say that there is a window of opportunity for our current leader to at least match this foreign policy nadir, if not eclipsing it.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 11:11 am

Photos of Ahmajinedad proudly walking around his nuclear weapon facility the other day pretty much the same day Maobama submits plans to the Pentagon to cut nuclear warheads by 80 percent and people the media is talking about condoms. Kumbaya people.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 11:11 am

forgive my grammar.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:14 am

Cro, The radical Islamist agenda arguably already had a fairly big shot in the arm when the Shah was allowed to fall under Carter’s watch to be replaced by a mild mannered, unthreatening, mullah in the person of Ayatollah Khomeini.

“Allowed to fall.” Hilarious. And what should have Carter done against a popular uprising? Even more meddling into the affairs of another country? Because that’s worked so well in other places like Brazil, Argentina, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:16 am

herb, so if Iran completes a bomb, they’ll have like 2 and we’ll still have hundreds, if not thousands. CLEARLY A MISSLE GAP.

Must be the same math they’re using to manipulate the unemployment numbers, eh herb?

POSTED BY fraublucher | February 21, 2012 @ 11:18 am

Forgive.. “your grammar”?? LMAO

I guess we’re suppose to nuke Iran? Really? And where would that get us?

Gotta love the repubs. Hate birth control, but will nuke civilizations off the face of the earth.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Mike, Mike, Mike, were you in diapers during the Carter era? They really drilled this stuff into you. Some professors, the good ones, actually encouraged debated even though their personal views may have been diametrically different to yours. That’s how people used to learn. It’s different than parroting the views of the NYT editorial board. You got shortchanged somewhere along the line.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 21, 2012 @ 11:27 am

The invasion of Iraq contributed in a big way to tilting the balance of power in favor of Iran. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? That won’t happen again any time soon.
Once again, “Mao”bama ( good one herb ) is in charge of yet another massive cleanup after W’s fun party.
Not to worry, deadeye, “mao”bama and bibi will organize this clean-up below the radar. They’ve already started. A second “mao”bama foreign policy success, an encore after the death of binLaden, will force the TeaParty to continue to have nothing to talk about, except, perhaps, how spilling one’s seed is deemed a capital offense in Leviticus, or, perhaps, per more recent news, the value of placing aspirin between one’s knees.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:30 am

deadeye: “blah…blah…blah. You got shortchanged somewhere along the line.”

None of which refutes any of my posts.

Let’s not comment on each other’s debate technique when only one of us is debating.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:30 am

There are certain tipping points in history. Trading the perceived “human rights” abuses of a handful of Islamic radicals and future architects of the “popular uprising” in Iran, for the stablility of a relatively progressive (women’s rights, etc.) middle eastern ally, was just plain stupid.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:32 am

Mike, read my last post. If you disagree, you’re worse off than I thought.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 11:33 am

“Gotta love the repubs. Hate birth control, but will nuke civilizations off the face of the earth”

Heh, heh Someone’s been watching The View again?

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 11:35 am

I don’t know, deadeye. I’m no Einstein, but I was certainly not “slack-jawed”, or even a little bit surprised, that Khomeni was a savage. Anyone who read of his time in France, anyone who kept even mildly abreast of the currents of Islamic politics and trends, would have seen it coming. That you didn’t puts you right in the forefront of the ostrich-in-the-sand school that seems to hold sway all too often in this country.

The Shah was wildly unpopular, corrupt, and murderous. Do you imagine that the Iranian people should have to settle for that? Would you? He was going, plain and simple. The question was, who would replace him and would it be worse. I don’t know of anyone who saw Khomeni as “mild-mannered”. Where do you get this stuff?

What Americans don’t seem to get, despite so many years having it demonstrated to them, is that they cannot always influence events in other parts of the world to their liking. That’s just the way the world works. So it is conceivable that earlier efforts to encourage a mora palatable alternative to the Shah could have been successful, but maybe not. Carter did not create the Islamic Republic, and it is absolutely absurd to suggest that he did.

As for the “Maobama” well, that is stupid beyond words.

POSTED BY johnqp | February 21, 2012 @ 11:35 am

Whoa … The Shah’s regime was stable ??

That’s a good one.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Deadeye, its not whether the current Iranian regime is better or worse than the Shah’s regime. Its whether Carter had any options to oppose it. Of course he didn’t. And even if he did, American meddling in foreign countries has a long, long history of failure for every one involved.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:39 am

Spiro, For what it’s worth, Iraq was a terrible mistake. What is this aspirin between the knees thing? I heard something this morning and didn’t catch the meaning…

Mike: See the above, It means I can entertain objectivity in my views. Then again, arguing with someone who is defending the Carter presidency isn’t something people do every day…

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 11:42 am

Our VP is traveling to Providence, Road Island this week. If gas isn’t $5 a gallon I’d like to go there myself this summer. heh, heh

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 11:45 am

herb, you’d probably be better off saving your money and vactioning in “Uzbecky-Becky-Stan-Stan”.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Mike: See the above, It means I can entertain objectivity in my views. Then again, arguing with someone who is defending the Carter presidency isn’t something people do every day…

Saying you can maintain objectivity, then saying the entire Carter presidency is indefensible is contradictory. “I am objective in my views! Unless they contradict what I already know!”

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Cro, I seem to recall some State Dept. evaluation of Khomenei as “moderate,” “unthreatening,” or words to that effect. The Shah may not have been popular, but you can bet that millions of Iranians would rather have him back than have effectively lost the intervening decades, freedoms, and standard of living. Carter was simply ineffective as a president, bordering on the injurious.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 11:48 am

deadeye,

Santorum supporter Foster Friess joked on msnbc “You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives, The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

Granted not very funny but you know Spiro and his ilk are the wardens of good humor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f&v=MMVzaIMYuTY

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 11:49 am

Mike, Why don’t you gather the rest of your fellow Carter supporters and have a meeting in a broom closet somewhere. There aren’t many phone booths left. (My point is that you will need a very small space..) Get it?

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:51 am

Granted not very funny but you know Spiro and his ilk are the wardens of good humor.

No, its not very funny in that it implies that women who use contraception are tramps. Hilarious! Also hilarious: a panel on contraception that doesn’t have one woman on it! Ladies and gentlemen, the republican party. They are aware women can vote now, right?

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 11:52 am

Why don’t you gather the rest of your fellow Carter supporters and have a meeting in a broom closet somewhere.

As soon as you list what Carter should have done to prevent the mullahs from taking over. For extra credit, name the presidents that sold arms to them. Starts with an “R.”

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 11:59 am

I’d be interested to see that State Department evaluation, deadeye.

But of course you DO understand that State Deparatment analysts are charged with contemplating every possible option, and with offering views that are then synthesized, in theory anyway, into policy. Sure, there were probaly folks at State who saw Khomeni as moderate. But that was not the official view and policy was not predicated on that view. As you will recall, people at State and CIA were warning of a threatening and dangerous USSR right up until the day the whole thing collapsed in on itself. You will recall that various Bush cabinet members predicted that US troops would be welcomed with flowers into Baghdad just as their grandfathers were in Paris. You will recall the certainty that sanctions would topple Castro.

Wrong. All wrong. Does this mean that those analysts and experts are stupid? No, but it does indicate a lack of understanding as far as the underlying conditions in these places and a total blindness to the rage that can drive people to act against their government even when, as we see in Libya, the replacement is at best unknown.

I carry no water for Carter. I think he was a failure as a president and he strikes me as a bitter, sanctimonious prig as a man. But blaming him for the Iranian revolution makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for 9/11.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 21, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

I find Santorum’s religious fanaticism alarming. He believes women should stay home and home school their children, which of course they’d have to do if he had his way and got rid of public education. And the comment about aspirin is not funny, Herb. It’s appalling. The entire slate of candidates put forth by one of two major parties is worthy of a backward banana republic and certainly not worthy to represent what has been an incredibly innovative society. I guess that’s over. Because, you know, science is really just another theology Obama is trying to force on all those people whose religious freedom is being threatened. Hogwash. A bunch of asshats.

POSTED BY sheepy | February 21, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

@Conan, John Hancock. I think he was the first person to hold the title of President in America.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

Point taken Cro. State has had lots of egg on their face over the years, but I’ve still long held the view that promotion of his human rights agenda was central to Carter’s actions at various critical points regarding Iran.

OK Mike, You’ve got me. Republicans are evil religious fanatics. If one is elected, all women will lose their rights to contraception, just like abortions were banned under the Bush administration. The Dems always need a straw man in their debate. Under a GOP regime regulations are bad and intrusive; under a Democratic one they foster the common good. Am I getting it? Government should choose winners and losers in business. Campaign donors that want to start cockamamie energy projects should have access to unlimited taxpayer funds. The free market is bad. Central planning is good. There should be monitors in schools going through children’s lunches telling them what to eat. Chicken nuggets and tater tots are better than a salami sandwich, but that’s not any sort of ridiculous overreach. It’s good, because the government says so. Anyone who works hard to earn money, and hopes to save for retirement, should have it taxed away from them to fund the retirements of municipal, employees who work for the greater good and are altruists. Outcomes should be equal. Meritocracy is bad. Mediocrity is good. I think I’m getting it.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

JG, You can relax. Santorum is not going to get the nomination. Caspar Milquetoast eventually will. In any case many Americans would rather vote for Charles Manson than what we have now.

POSTED BY Right of Center | February 21, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

I could hold my nose for Romney, but couldn’t pull the lever for Santorum. But, really, all my liberal friends should relax and breath easy. Romney is unelectable. Short of child molestation or bombing London, I think Obama’s got this in the bag already.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

I hate to admit it but you’re right. Unless we get an October surprise of some sort.

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Yes, Yes, deadeye. You’ve got it, by Jove!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

just like abortions were banned under the Bush administration.

To deny that ending abortion has been a republican party plank for at least 10 years now is denying reality. It’s not a strawman.

There should be monitors in schools going through children’s lunches telling them what to eat. Chicken nuggets and tater tots are better than a salami sandwich, but that’s not any sort of ridiculous overreach.

You do know that that ‘food inspector’ was a state employee, (badly) enforcing a state law, right? No, you don’t, because it the right has a love affair with what our Montclair friend has called “truthiness.” Its not true, but darn it, you wish it was. The rest of your list has similar worth.

POSTED BY cathar | February 21, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

Re some posts above, the Shah’s regime was at least as stable as that of any current Mideast Muslim-dominated state. And certainly less murderous, with the possible exception of Lebanon right this very minute. As to why there was a Shah holding the Peacock Throne in the first place, that goes back at least as far as WWII. (I wonder how many posters here are aware of Iran’s curious role in that war, and why the Brits had to descend there in force.) As an example of evil reveries at their most extreme, politicians in what are now both Iran and Iraq dreamed of welcoming the link-up in their area of victorious Axis armies heading both south from Russia and east from Egypt. This was then to usher in a glorious era of Islamic dominance in th Mideast (while Germany, of course, held both all of Europe and Russia.)

What is most appalling about so many posts above is that posters presume that merely not commenting on Carter’s failure of nerve against Iran is sufficient “defense” of his administration’s many failures, both foreign and domestic. Thankfully, Carter was but a one-term president, but he has nonetheless kept at creating mischief on a global scale, including activities which some would understandably view as treasonous and are definitely forbidden by private citizens under US law. (Why we don’t prosecute this hapless, self-rightous and plainly embittered mushmouth for his constant meddlng in American foreign policy has always baffled me.) Speaking of “evil religious fanatics,” a supposedly enlightened Baptist like Jimmy Carter who’s “progressive” is surely the worst imaginable. Thank goodness he’s never been able to mount a comeback.

The danger inherent in Iran (and yes, I’d certainly support and aid Isarel in military actions agsinst this crazo state) is that it will put its Mahdist yearnings to the ultimate test, and thus drop a nuclear weaoon somewhere. (It really only takes one, after all.) This is not a nation distinguished by restraint, but rather one prone to a curious kind of emotionalism. This was brought home to me by that amazing series of photos in the Post recently, which I first thought were a joke. Alas, they were not. The photos showed a cardboard cutout of the Ayatollah Khomeini being “welcomed back (a la Mr. Kotter!) on the anniversary of his return to Iran and political power. A military escort welcomed this cutout at the airport, then a military convoy escorted it, placed in the back seat of a limo, to the government complex in Tehran. There is nothing approaching even a half-sense of humor among most Iranian politicians, and, again, they apparently really do await the reappearance of the Mahdi over there and will do anything to help implement it.

When Ahmadinejad told students at Columbia “there are no homosexuals” in Iran, for example, he meant that should they poke their heads above ground they’ll be cut off.

But deadeye, your remark about Americans voting for Charles Manson was really pretty stupid. And insulting mostly to your own self, given what it says about your own apparent cynicism. You want to be a conservative, be a sensible one.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

Cathar, I was trying to make a point. I just couldn’t bring myself to even joke that I would vote for Sarah Palin. Give me a fiscally conservative, socially moderate realist with some character and backbone.

POSTED BY johnqp | February 21, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

Three things that really sunk Carter’s re-election chances with the voting public :

1) The killer rabbit incident

2) Wearing black socks with white jogging sneakers

3) Applying a ton of studio makeup during his debate with Reagan ( who used none)

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

Your knowledge of Iranian history, and of middle eatern history in general cathar, is on a par with your expertise on so many other subjects — which is to say, zero.

But I am heartened that you would “support” the Israelis in a move against Iran. I am even willing to pay your one-way fare to the Holy Land so that you can hurry on down to the recruiting station and become a full fledged member of the IDF.

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

My contacts in the IDF have indicated to me that they would welcome the addition of the intrepid cathar to their ranks. They have even decided on his first assignment. He’ll be replacing this guy:

http://4bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/R8SbbV1gCcI/AAAAAAAAJhs/jkpnr4AGFG8/s400/IsraeliSoldierField.jpg

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

Damn NSA! Blocked again!

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 21, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

“Cathar, I was trying to make a point. I just couldn’t bring myself to even joke that I would vote for Sarah Palin. Give me a fiscally conservative, socially moderate realist with some character and backbone.”

The problem here, deadeye, is that the right wing decided to pander to the portion of the party that is full of people who are not rational thinkers. The rational ones have decided that winning (getting Obama out) is more important than anything else. Even the welfare of the country. No compromises, winner takes all. So they pander to the lunatic fringe because it’s more important to prove their “true” conservatism than it is to actually govern. Even if that means calling science a “theology” or calling for an end to public education.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 21, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

Middle east, schmiddle east! I’m backing Syrian Girl all the way!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk1sLqfWdVw&feature=g-all-u&context=G23222dcFAAAAAAAAAAA

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

“The rational ones have decided that winning (getting Obama out) is more important than anything else.”

Then call me rational.

I have no problem with Rick Santorum. We have bigger issues than absurd things like access to birth control which btw he never voted against. Herb is not letting the media take his eye off the ball. Ridiculous debate questions thrown out to distract people from the real issues this country faces like Maobama’s dismal record. Unfortunately we’ll be stuck with Romney the most center of them all because even websites like Drudge are in the tank for him. That said I don’t care who is running against Maobama, they will get my vote. Yes, Spiro even an aardvark. I don’t care what their view is on religion, Iran, Iraq, birth control, (puhleeese with that one). My bumper sticker.

—————– in 2012 ( fill in the blank don’t matter to me)

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 21, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

Elliot Spitzer made a good observation on Bill Maher (refrain from commenting till you’ve read the post! Everybody!) that there are three disparate factions in the Republican party which can’t coalesce:
there is the Libertarian faction — small government, Ron Paul; there is the social conservative faction–Rick Santorum, and there is the party of business and corporate governance–Romney. No one seems to be able to unite all three factions.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

I draw the line at Santorum. What the man does in his own home with his family is his business but I resent the proselytizing. To me, a President Santorum is much scarier than a President Obama.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

The Libertarian enclave in NH is sounding better every day.

POSTED BY Howard Beale | February 21, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

Agreed, Mrs Martta. Unfortunately, that will probably be our choice.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

You think Santorum will get the nod? I don’t. I think it will be Romney. The Republicans know they won’t have a chance in hell if they put Santorum up against Obama.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 21, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

I would love to see Santorum get the nod. Maybe then the politically comatose members of society will wake up.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

herb, I agree with you. These social issues are a sideshow to the real problems facing the country. I just don’t see anything in the Republican party platform about the economy or environmental issues that isn’t the same old tried and failed policies of the last administration. Romney’s economic plan hinges on domestic energy production. A fantasy. I’m not even sure what Santorum wants to do for the economy because he just uses platitudes. Neither of them will acknowledge the global warming issue. Romney just paid 14% in taxes, thanks to carried interest, and he thinks that’s just fine and dandy. Ugh.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

Neither of them will acknowledge the global warming issue.

No surprises there. Conservatives don’t think we have a global warming “issue.”

By the way, while we’re on the subject, I recently got my results back from the National Geographic Genotype Project. In a nutshell, it analyzes your DNA to see where you ancestors migrated from. Everyone’s ancestors, of course, originated in Africa. But depending on what part of Africa they were from, many groups (including my ancestors) migrated north out of Africa some 50,000 years ago. Why? Climactic conditions created warming, which caused severe drought conditions. This was 50,000 years ago, way before any kinds of industry, fossil fuels, man-made carbon emissions, etc.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

If I understand correctly, your reasoning is that because the earth warmed sometime in the past not due to industrial activity, therefore industrial activity isn’t responsible now?

Ok then.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

My point is that global warming (and cooling) trends are not new. They’ve been around as long as the Earth is old.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

Here’s a message for President’s Day from a Great President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4yf723kmY&feature=related

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

MM, you have a President (and his wife) currently telling you how to do everything in your everyday life from what to eat to what car to drive and your worried about Santorum? I wouldn’t cast him aside just yet just because he’s picked up steam and now they are taking him down. Look at his voting record. Hardly a right wing conservative, he backed Arlen Specter for geeze sakes. Put your feeling about these candidates aside don’t you see a pattern? It was originally Bachman after the Iowa straw, then Cain, then Newt, now Santorum. The mainstream media and Obama want Romney because they know with his money and his version of Obamacare they have alot to work with. Santorum? The best thing they can get on him is that he’s some religious nut. Why because he’s a practicing Roman Catholic whose views are in line with a greater amount of people across this country than the coastal lib elites want to admit? Look at his voting record, where is he some right wing nut? He sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act with John Kerry. Thats radical, that tells you how live your life? He has said that there is a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility. As a devout Roman Catholic he has never voted agaisnt anyone’s access to birth control, quite the opposite. It’s a sad day when someone is branded a religious zealot simply because he is a practice Roman Catholic. In the end Romney will dump another 20 million into Michigan and probably pull it out but he can’t even put Santorum away in his own state. Herb slapped his Santorum bumper sticker on his car a few weeks back and made a sizable donation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 21, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

“I just don’t see anything in the Republican party platform about the economy or environmental issues….”

Whats in Maobama’s policy? Throwing billions of dollars of tax payer money to his friends in failed ‘green’ companies just for the sake of saying he’s doing something? Another area where he’s failed.

POSTED BY fraublucher | February 21, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

Yes, that damn Michelle Obama! I was just going to have a bag of BBQ potato chips when she came along and slapped me on the wrist! Can you imagine! Those meddlesome people!

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 4:44 pm

The Obama Economic Agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 21, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

I don’t care if he’s Roman Catholic or Zoroastrian. That’s fine, live and let live. But why do his religious beliefs always wind up being front and center during his campaign? We saw this in the debates, of course, and now it just permeates his entire campaign. We get what’s he’s about. But now let’s hear him talk about the economy–what are his plans? How does he propose to get Americans back to work? What will he do about the health insurance crisis? The fuel crisis? What are his views on our relations with the rest of the world? I would like to hear more about these topics than his views of abortion (which we’ve heard ad nauseum) or about Catholic hospitals dispensing birth control(ditto).

I will say one thing in his favor. He is what he is, unlike some of the other chameleons, uh candidates, running for office. I will give him that.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

Well, herb, unemployment is on the way down. So, whether he’s done anything or not, that means bad news for whomever runs against him in November.

Or do you still think he’s manipulating the unemployment numbers?

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 5:01 pm

The Obama Economic Agenda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html

I especially loved the SCARY ALL CAPS SUBTITLES. You can tell the person who edited this in the running for a Pulitzer.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 21, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

MM, building codes and zoning restrictions all over the world are in the process of changing right now so as to take into account the inevitable implications of climate change. You can blame it on celestial trends, cows, SUV’s, or what have you, but all speculation is completely besides the point.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 21, 2012 @ 5:33 pm

MM, you have a President (and his wife) currently telling you how to do everything in your everyday life from what to eat to what car to drive and your worried about Santorum?

Right. So on one side, they are encouraging healthy habits. Because child hood obesity is a very big, and very costly problem. And a secular one. Santorum would like to encourage women to have children and stay at home to school their children – and would be happy to dismantle the public education system and has publicly said our state laws should comport with the laws of Abraham. (Separation of church and state?). And you don’t see the difference here? Okay, Herb.

And I’m not even going to bother to post anything about man’s impact on the climate because, hey, the climate always changes and we adapt. Let’s just ignore all those pesky scientists. They don’t do God’s work anyway – another Santorum point of view.

POSTED BY cathar | February 21, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

I think my knowledge of Iranian (and Iraqi) history is pretty good, croiagusanam. Firm, in fact.

But if you in fact have enough money to spring for me taking a vacation in Israel (where I’d gladly, as an admirer of Israel’s military, pay my respects but also recognize that there’s very little way I can “help” them), send it on. Although I’d have guessed from your bitter and seemingly atrabilious posts that you don’t have a spare pair of dimes to pinch together most afternoons. So, instead, you post. Altogether condescendingly at every juncture, too.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 21, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

What a charade! Christians goooood!
Moslims baaaaaaaad!
How about an atheist for President….The end of the world!
Can’t we just deal with the issues?
Nah, that’s too hard.
Oh, my God….What if a Unitarian ran?

POSTED BY cathar | February 21, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

And deadeye, I generally appreciate the points you try to make here. But, really, you’re dealing with a passel of (I’m sure most self-anoint themselves this way) “progressives” whose main role on this site is to yowl and to express complete, uncomprehending mystification when someone else, like yourself or herb, expresses a differing, conservative viewpoint. In varying degrees of bafflement, they don’t get it (which, I agree, is no tribute to their spirit of intellectual openness). Mainly because they refuse to get it. They, rather, imagine themselves as representing the truly righteous, see themselves as both “chosen” somehow and respected by each other for their good political sense.

Spiro T-for Tawana and croiagusanam are probably the worst, because the former adopts a wheezy sobriquet dating back to a period when probably many posting “progressives” here weren’t even born and the latter merely specializes in contempuousness. But in general, for all the support of marriage equality and suchlike, this is a very old-seeming site, judging from its most prominent posters. So many sound like folks who honestly would have voted for McGovern.

The worst, most galling issue for so many, deadeye, is probably that they realize that their own political impotence is most pronounced at the purely local level, where they can neither get their property taxes lowered, re-elect Corzine as governor (which would have at least kept him off Wall Street again) or even have local parking procedures modified to meet their personal and fussy needs. So they defend Obama and profess scorn for both conservatives and social conservatism. I suspect, however, that Obama will perforce sell out the lot of them in the course of a likely second term, even as I comparably doubt that few will ever admit to noticing they’ve in fact been sold out.

POSTED BY cathar | February 21, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

PS: The attempted defenses of Carter above, however weakly argued, are proof that Baristaville’s “progressives” will never ever admit to themselves just how badly politicians they’ve supported will inevitably sell them out.

Say whatever else you wish about Ronald Reagan, he always displayed unstinting love of country (the man seemed thrilled just to recite the Pledge of Allegiance) and never displayed the same brand of sanctimony and self-righteousness as Carter.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 21, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

Cathar, in the grand scheme of things you can’t bring Nixonian politics back. Your use of the word “scorn” shows a deep seated prejudice against anything proposed from the left side. Let Romney win, let Santorum, whoever and there will be more of the same. If there is impotence at the local level, it will be the same at the national. We’ve all been sold out many years ago to the ruling class. Monuments abound to the selfless while the corrupt still surreptiously reward each other over our sacrifices.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 21, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

P.S. Cathar, Reagan was an actor.

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

Let me add to your non-existant resume vis-a-vis middle eastern history, cathar, your intimate knowledge of my finances.

One might wonder how you arrived at a determination that I don’t have a spare pair of dimes, but of course I know the answer. You made it up, like you do in your political ramblings and in your uproarious recollections of your travels (most recently to “Abnerfordshire”, where presumably you were the guest of Lord Lil’ Abner and Lady Mamie Yokum).

But I’m doing fine, thanks, and I would gladly pay your freight to Tel Aviv if you’d promise to stay there and bore the crap out the Israelis for a change.

“Contemptousness”. This from the most vile and mean-spirited individual on the site? Well, you’re right. I DO have contempt for phonies and bullies. If the shoe fits, put it somewhere, my friend.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 21, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

Reagan may have loved this country, but he only paid lip service to it’s constitution. Oh that’s right! That trickster, Oliver North, did all that unconstitutional stuff without Reagan knowing! So, he was either incompetent, or a liar.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 21, 2012 @ 8:59 pm

Cathar has made many valid points and has drawn the requisite vitriol for it. I don’t know from where some of the animosity derives, but it livens things up even if it does get somewhat personal. The comments about the progressives at the local level are right on the mark from my perspective. And Mike, it’s not like your pal, the paragon of virtue in the White House, has been rather busy trammeling the Constitution, and generally circumventing the legislative process when it suits him, and couldn’t carry Reagan’s bag…

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 21, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

deadeye, you seem like a good fellow with a sense of humour and the ability to present your views in a coherent fashion.

But if you don’t know from whence the “vitriol” derives, and if you haven’t noticed the source of 90% of it, there is a gap you should address, my friend.

POSTED BY walleroo | February 21, 2012 @ 10:05 pm

You’re so cute, deadeye. You talk like a virgin, touched for the very first time. That probably doesn’t sit well with your idea of yourself as a hardened realist, but what can I say. Your sweet innocence inspired me to reach back in time, through the Baristanet archives, to the very first truly satisfying exchange I ever had with cathar, back in March 2005. Oh, it was a very good year.

Somehow, reading it again after all these years, it’s somewhat disappointing. I realize that the exchange grew in my memory to become larger than life. In my mind, cathar was just so nasty and vituperative, but now it seems, uh, kind of flaccid. Perhaps it only sounded impressive because back then, I was–as you are now, deadeye–a virgin. If you were here, sweetie, I would muss your hair.

Here’s the link, in case you want to read the whole shebang.

You and cro are mere kids on the block. So behave.

POSTED BY cathar | MARCH 30, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
Personally, I’d simply hate to disappoint the witless ones sniggering haplessly above, so I’ll just ask if this cereal is yet another inspiration from the fertile mind of Woody Harrelson. There now, do all you groundlings feel all comfy and superior? Golly but I hope so.

POSTED BY walleroo | MARCH 30, 2005 @ 11:35 PM
Thank you, cathar. I enjoyed that. It’s really much more fun when you come down from Mt. Olympus and romp with us nincompoops. (Am I spelling that correctly?) I also like the way you slipped in the word ‘golly’, as though it were something the dog just dropped. Way to go, dude!

POSTED BY PAZ | February 21, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

I love all you rightees living vicariously through your Reagan nostalgia. Were any of you alive at that time? Out there in the world or were you flipping pablum off your big bird spoon? Seems like you should put Reagan up for Sainthood.
You are Crusaders for your cause, keep up the good work and maybe you’ll have a Saint in the White house soon, either Catholic, Protestant or Mormon. Maybe he’ll actually get something done when he’s not in church or at prayer meetings or fund raisers or limiting women’s rights. I’ve seen it all from JFK, Tricky Dick et al on up the DC line and they say Hope dies last. Yeah, and I’m hoping for gas to be two bucks a gallon.
Maybe I should take pilgrimage on the Camino de Santiago Compostela, hoping and praying for a better saintly person to turn our great nation around.
Maybe, or I’ll just leave it to the gen x/y ‘ers. Time for them to step up to the plate and go down like the rest of us fodder clowns for the ruling elite.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 5:16 am

cathar, you miss the mark yet again ( maybe it’s better to stay away from the IDF ).

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 5:46 am

..but, cathar, should you dutifully volunteer your services to the IDF, and you’re all sitting around the campfire one night with your uzis, may “wheezy” old Spiro “T. for Tawana” here suggest that you refrain from retelling them your old tome – the one you grace Baristanet with every December — you know, the one about how sensitive and benign the Crusaders were when they passed through Jerusalem way back when…but then again, howls of laughter might just be the thing to break up the sounds of acacia tortilis roasting on the open fire.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 6:57 am

I was very much alive back then, from 1981-89. I first moved to Montclair in ’81 and stayed for 23 years. And while I won’t be nominating Reagan for sainthood, I remember life being full of hope back then. I made less than I make today but my buck went farther. It was easier to find a job, or two, back then. So yeah, I have good memories of the Reagan years.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 22, 2012 @ 8:09 am

I graduated college just after Reagan took office. Vivid memories of gas lines, Olympic boycotts, friends parents losing jobs, and general malaise of the Carter era…

POSTED BY deadeye | February 22, 2012 @ 8:22 am

Bush 2 certainly had his faults, but lets not forget his congressional enablers. The financial crisis was global, and a demand driven phenomenon. There was a mad scramble for assets, and we happened to obligingly be able to produce many of them in the form of mortgage securities. You can wish as much as you want, but Bush was not it’s architect, although it did occur on his watch. The congressional overseers of the financial sector (predominantly long tenured Democrats) were actively promoting sketchy financing as a means to a social goal. That is a fact, and it greased the skids for what was to come. Thankfully we had such a peaceful and prosperous interval between bungling and incompetent presidents whose social ideologies are so evidently damaging to our culture and economy, and hopefully we are at a turning point now. Pray for sanity in November.

POSTED BY croiagusanam | February 22, 2012 @ 8:24 am

THIS was by far the biggest outrage perpetrated on the American people during the Carter years:

http://wwwyoutube.com/watch?v=ilny-CIVdnQ

I will never forgive him.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 8:44 am

Sorry Mikey…………Obama can fudge his employment number and change the calculations but Gallup is still the same. I don’t know what site presstv is but you can easily google it. Rising unemployment, $5 gas, an Arab Spring and lack of foreign policy all ingredients for his January departure from office. Come summertime people won’t care if it’s Rick Santorum or Rick Astley running for President against Obama.

http://presstv.com/detail/227288.html

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 8:49 am

Hey but the shameful Obama party continues at the White house.

Last nights celebrity packed live set list:

1. “Let the Good Times Roll” (Ensemble)
2. “The Thrill Is Gone” (B.B King)
3. “St. James Infirmary” (Trombone Shorty)
4. “Let Me Love You Baby” (Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck)
5. “Brush With The Blues” instrumental (Jeff Beck)
6. “I Can’t Turn You Loose” (Mick Jagger)
7. “Commit A Crime” (Mick Jagger, Jeff Beck)
8. “Miss You” (Mick Jagger, Shemekia Copeland, and Susan Tedeschi,)
9. “Beat Up Guitar” (Shemekia Copeland, Gary Clark, Jr.)
10. “Catfish Blues” (Gary Clark, Jr.)
11. “In The Evening (When The Sun Goes Down)” (Gary Clark, Jr.)
12. “Henry” ( Keb’ Mo’)
13. “I’d Rather Go Blind” (Susan Tedeschi, Derek Trucks, Warren Haynes)
14. “Five Long years” (Buddy Guy, Jeff Beck, Gary Clark, Mick Jagger)
15. “Sweet Home Chicago” (Ensemble)

Obama fiddles on…………………….

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 8:54 am

Man o’ man , the leader of the free world in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhO1DnNKYbo&feature=player_embedded

Lets help send him back asap.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 8:56 am

No doubt, herb, you’d rather sit through a Reagan movie marathon.

But, in response to Rick Santorum’s next crusade – likely to be against the sin spilling one’s seed, I’d opt for song number 13 above …. “I’d Rather Go Blind”.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 9:06 am

Spiro, Michelle couldn’t be there she was in Aspen with the kids.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/301597/20120220/michelle-obama-s-skiing-vacation-aspen-photos.htm

Party on Wayne
Party on Garth

POSTED BY deadeye | February 22, 2012 @ 9:15 am

This is my playlist suggestion : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsTAUs_h_uY

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

POSTED BY PAZ | February 22, 2012 @ 9:26 am

…..And the band plays on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17124786

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Indeed, herb, deadeye and MM, someone needs to let BB King and that superb ensemble know that they are better off “Singing with the Mitt”. Anyone interested?

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 9:31 am

Mike Huckabee might be interested.

Seriously, I’m not interested in hearing Obama sing or see the First Lady do push ups on the Ellen Show.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 9:37 am

MM, They’re cool,they got swag don’t you know? Worked the last time not so sure it will this time. Hey, and it isn’t even golf season yet.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 9:44 am

MM, how about Richard Nixon singing and playing his own Piano Concerto #1 on the Jack Paar show?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCsGSMze_6Q

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 9:53 am

A little more dignified, I must say (even though I wasn’t a fan of his).

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 10:23 am

Yeah, I think a President coming on a show like Carson, Letterman and playing an instrument like Clinton on Aresenio Hall is hardly comparable to having yet another party at the WH and jumping on the stage ala Belushi in Animal House. The whole thing is so wrong in these times and if his supporters aren’t bothered just a bit by this than their partisanship is stronger then common sense.

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 10:32 am

No doubt, herb, partisanship only exists left of center. Whateverrrrrrr.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 10:34 am

They think it’s cute. I think it’s undignified for a President and First Lady to act like college sophomores. Now if Michelle Obama went to a grammar school and did push ups with the kids, that wouldn’t bother me. But on a talk show? uh-uh.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 10:41 am

Americans satisfaction almost lowest since Carter.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/21/americans-satisfaction-almost-as-low-as-it–was-under-carter

Not here Baristaville, where people have their heads buried in the the foam of the lattes (I mentioned lattes here comes Spiro with a ahem ‘witty’ reply)

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Obama singing Al Green was a perfect sound bite, and, what I understand from folks abroad in Europe, the segment was a huge hit over there, only boosting his popularity among our European allies.
Next up, Rick and Mitt sing a really swell medley of “Pat Boone’s Greatest Hits”. Neato.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 10:55 am

Americans satisfaction almost lowest since Carter.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/21/americans-satisfaction-almost-as-low-as-it–was-under-carter

What’s interesting about you herb, is your almost complete lack of integrity. What you skipped from the link is that its the lowest since George HW Bush. No need to mention that, though, when its another opportunity to mention that old dead horse, Carter.

Not that I trust the American Enterprise Institute, who used to employ liars like Newt Gingrich and Michael Novak, to say the sky is blue.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Ahhhh, Mikey, Lack of integrity? I sent you the full article and put the headline of the article at the top. You know not of what you are talking about. Never mind whats in the article by the same source you used yesterday, nope, it’s about me . Congrats i like your Alinsky tactics.

yup, Spiro dems are cool. heh heh

Your party is in for a massive defeat this November. You were given the keys to the car but couldn’t even get out of the driveway.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 11:31 am

Ahhhh, Mikey, Lack of integrity?

Yes. Is Obama manipulating the unemployment numbers, or not? What proof do you have?

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

herb, i admire your indefatigable cheerleading, and your unshakeable belief that it is gonna happen your way.
No doubt, Baristanet will see endless herb posts in November about how the vote was rigged, should Obama ( rightfully ) get re-elected.
What’s with the “dems are cool” line? Are you suggesting, herb, that Pat Boone is a square?

POSTED BY DagT | February 22, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

@MM I sit pretty much on the same side of the political fence as you. But here I differ. I see a certain charm to the Obamas. Their good relationship and family life seems honest to me. Her very healthy body and her fitness is an excellent model for women of all ages. His nice voice demonstrated to the public was no better or worse than a TV piano playing politician. I’m not sure if phony dignity as per Nixon or Nancy Regan made this country any better. The casual images of the first couple reflects our society. Take a look around any upscale resturant and check the dress. Even country club casual is hard to find.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 12:21 pm

C’mon Mike once again it’s time for you to go to school.

Obama administration reports that unemployment is 8.3% (soon to go above 9% according to Gallup), this figure does not include the 11 million that have left the work force. The WH figures are based on those individuals that have actively sought employment in the 4 weeks prior to when the latest survey taken. It doesn’t reflect those that have been out of work for two years or longer who are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.

Thats manipulating the numbers in my book.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

Thats manipulating the numbers in my book.

But it’s the way the labor department always reports these numbers, contrary to your unproven assertion that the Obama admin has been cooking the books.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

It’s not the way they’ve always reported. As of jan this year the calculations changed. in the words of case Stengel “you can look it up”.

BTW- reports of gas pushing $6 a gallon in areas of Florida. It was $1.80 when GB 2 left office.

POSTED BY deadeye | February 22, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

I confess that I prefer a president less reminiscent on MC Hammer, but that’s just me. If Romney gets elected, we could have a weekly program: “Sing Along With Mitt.” This is a joke. You need to be of a certain age to get it.

Mike, What can I say? You were born too late. You, my friend, would have been an excellent Bolshevik, and made the party proud. Guessing you know what a Bolshevik is. Alexander Pope once said: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. One must drink deep from the Pyhrean(sp) spring…” One day you will have the epiphany that most ardent and dogmatic liberals have, and be forced to look at issues from a practical perspective. Good Luck!

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

If you’re going to quote Pope, it’s actually “A little learning is dangerous thing…” but no matter. And, incidentally, it is illustrated quite perfectly above by MM’s declaration that climate change is a non-issue based on her interpretation of the Nat Geo Genotype Project.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

Mike, What can I say? You were born too late. You, my friend, would have been an excellent Bolshevik, and made the party proud.

Yes, what can you say? Because what you have said is less than nothing. Long on the “I just know this stuff to be true” and short on the facts. Its a particularly transparent condescension, because its so obvious that you have almost nothing to say all.

It’s not the way they’ve always reported. As of jan this year the calculations changed. in the words of case Stengel “you can look it up”.

For the second time, herb. I did, and found this:

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/03/participation-rate-issue-less

The numbers changed because of the census. Not because they’re being reported differently. Again, integrity.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

It is a non-issue, to me anyway, Tudlow. It’s been here since the dawn of time, there’s not a helluva lot we can do about it, it’s not necessarily a bad thing (or good thing for that matter). It’s just the way things are. If you don’t like it, take it up with the solar system.

Why not focus on the things we CAN change?

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

This is the right wing chant de jour –”high gas prices”, as if this is the foremost criteria ( along with aspirin between the knees) in voting for the right man (or woman ).
Not that I mind, we’re still getting bargain prices compared to the other highly industrialized nations in Europe.
But if I drove a Ford F450 with a 1000 pound gun rack, getting 4 gallons per mile, and I lived nowheres near a bus or train, I’d be pissed off, too.

POSTED BY Mrs Martta | February 22, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

The casual images of the first couple reflects our society. Take a look around any upscale resturant and check the dress. Even country club casual is hard to find.

This makes me sad.

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

Yup Spiro , Its a Right wing rallying cry. Just seems like yesterday on the campaign trail when Maobama knew all these people that couldn’t get to work or couldn’t look for jobs because of high gas prices. How many sob stories about teachers did we have to listen to? All the Democrat woes about high gas destroying the country. There are plenty of youtube clips of dems whining about high prices under Bush. Now according to Obama prices are rising because economy is allegedly doing better. Its humorous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbzzeuYJteY

hahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahhahah

POSTED BY herbeverschmel | February 22, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

Yup, Spiro a right wing thing. It’s getting boring whipping you guys around all day. I feel Einstein talking to a kindergartner. I’m moving on.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

Not to defend Obama, but how much control does the POTUS really have over gas prices?

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 22, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

It is a non-issue, to me anyway, Tudlow. It’s been here since the dawn of time, there’s not a helluva lot we can do about it, it’s not necessarily a bad thing (or good thing for that matter).

Well,tell that to the people who live in the Maldives, they’ll probably all have to move in a decade. Along with people in all other countries in low lying areas. Or maybe even Texas, last year half the state was on fire while the other half was flooding. In many places that have experienced severe droughts in the past decade or two, scientists are no longer calling it “drought”, but have accepted that it is part of the desertification process.

There could have done things, we should have – but here we are. I wonder how everyone will respond in 20 years when most of our major cities will have to start shoring up their waterfronts, to the tune of billions of dollars – in order to avoid being under water. Then there’s just a small thing called the food chain, and where will be able to grow our food since water will be another issue. I’m so glad I’ll be gone if 50 years, but it’s pretty ignorant to say the impact of what we’re doing to our climate won’t be bad. For many people it will be devastating.

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

Take it up with the solar system? Oh my. It’s hard to know where to start with your statement and I sense it’s pointless since your mind is made up about the matter. (You have an opinion and you look for evidence to support it, which you cherry pick and misinterpret btw–this, fortunately, is not the way that science works.)

It’s not the solar system’s fault–it’s humans’ and the carbon cycle’s fault. That’s the whole point. And, there is something we can do about it but not when people who have absolutely no expertise on the matter arrogantly brush aside the consensus of every major scientific body based on what, a hunch? No, sadly, based on politics I suspect.

I’m all for focusing on things we can change despite this country’s stubbornness and myopic nature. That’s why I went into education.

I don’t know where you get your info, but skip the Heartland Institute and maybe look at a website like this?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Good luck! Demand evidence!

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

I realize you are in a rush ( no pun intended ) herb, but I didn’t know you took time out from your day to “feel Einstein talking to a kindergartner”

…..Now is it that you:
1. Feel Einstein while talking to a kindergartner, or is it
2. That you feel Einstein and the kindergartner at the same time?

The abstract nature of the sentence is confusing and somewhat creepy.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

I feel Einstein talking to a kindergartner. I’m moving on.

Hey Einstein! Care to turn your massive intellect towards the American Spectator link that I’ve now posted twice? Or is it too much to ask you to back up your own statements?

POSTED BY DagT | February 22, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

Oh Tud I too am a skeptic as to the weight or percentage of human’s impact on climate changes. I remain open to proof but recognize that even your’s is influenced by politics. I have a research scientist friend who stays current with data and has more influence on my thinking than web sites fueled by the government. Even the most august scientific associations are political when seeking grants and funding. Much more research is needed before the hypothesis of human cause is validated.

Take a trip to China. It will make you think America, even the most polluted areas, is shiny bright.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

(You have an opinion and you look for evidence to support it, which you cherry pick and misinterpret btw–this, fortunately, is not the way that science works.)

I could say the same thing about you and your opinion. For every article in every academic journal or newspaper you find to defend your opinion, I can find one to debunk it. And not written by quacks and nut jobs but real live scientists.

Yes, there are things we can do to reduce pollutants and contaminants around the world and I would truly like to see that happen. I doubt that would have any notable effect on climate change but it WOULD make for a healthier, more pleasant environment. But, of course, all countries that pollute would have to get on board. Good luck with that one.

I used the National Geographic example to illustrate a point. The point being that thousands of years before industrialization, corporate farming, automobiles, airplanes, whatever, the Earth had climactic events. Some of these events led to the extinction of plants, animals, and yes, even some groups of humans. Cruel maybe, but this is how Nature works.

This is the last I’ll say on this matter. You all know my thoughts on the subject and I know yours. Let’s just agree to disagree.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 22, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Yes, well. There still isn’t consensus on the age of the earth. Despite all the scientific evidence, many people still believe it’s only a few thousand years old. If the climate data of the past few decades – and the SPEED at which the climate is changing – and the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists, regardless of who is funding them (aside from the 3 or 4 “deniers” in the pocket of the energy industries) isn’t going to convince some people there is a real issue, then nothing will.

There are still some people who think the moon landing was a hoax too. Where’s the proof?

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

Agreed, DagT, China is bad news in the pollution department. Yet human vs natural cause is besides the point, in that the climate is changing, period.
As per my post earlier, building codes and zoning regulations are in the process of being rewritten, right now, world wide, to induce, either by carrot or stick, or both, radically different ways that buildings are to be designed and used, so as to reduce rampant use of fossil fuels and water, either by tapping into alternates to fossil fuels, and/or much tighter and more intelligent building envelopes and mechanical and electrical systems, as well as much more stringent plumbing and landscaping criteria.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

A few thousand years old? How about ~4.5 billion years old?

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 22, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

What galls me the most, is how the right wing (along with the auto, coal, and oil industries) has managed to turn science into a “belief”. Even Santorum is calling the reasoning behind Obama’s policies a “theology”. As though governmental policies regarding things like evolution, climate change and women’s reproductive health should be governed by doctrine, and as he says, the laws of Abraham, rather than rational thought and common sense. It’s scary. Maybe the earth really is flat.

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

“I could say the same thing about you and your opinion. For every article in every academic journal or newspaper you find to defend your opinion, I can find one to debunk it. And not written by quacks and nut jobs but real live scientists.”

This is completely false. Where in the world would you get such an idea? Do you scour the databases? You should really think about whether you have any data to support such an outlandish claim. To support your belief, you would have to search for the number of abstracts that confirm or report climate change and compare it to the number that does not. I’d like to see that comparison actually–can you do this for me since you made such a bold statement?

It’s mind-boggling that you speak with such confidence on a matter in which you know nothing about. Your brain is hardwired, though, it’s really a lost cause. I just wish you would actually admit that you don’t know what you are talking about. I’m not a climatologist, I don’t often read the journal articles but I’ve looked at some of the data and I’ve read the summaries, I know how science work and I think it’s absurdly illogical to think there is some kind of hoax going on here. The trick is on you, really, and you’re too blind to see it. When it doesn’t irritate me, it just depresses me.

Dag, my friend, the China argument is a straw man. Just because they are burning fossil fuels at a higher rate than we are does not refute anthropogenic climate change.

Actually, this is a conservative tactic. You’re saying it’s a lost cause, so why bother. Can’t refute the evidence so let’s just say it’s too late.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

I’m not a climatologist, I don’t often read the journal articles but I’ve looked at some of the data and I’ve read the summaries.

And I am not an attorney but I often give free legal advice to my friends. I get it from watching Court TV and Judge Judy. Do you even see how ludicrous your statement sounds?

The counter articles and databases debunking climate change can be found all over the Internet and in the library. And no, I will not do your research for you.

I just wish you would actually admit that you don’t know what you are talking about. Back atcha.

POSTED BY mike 91 | February 22, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

Tudlow, I would just give up. The “refuting evidence” Mrs. Martta mentions likely is being published by the Wall Street Journal, not Science.

Everyone can be a scientist, all they have to do is figure out what the end result should be, then work backwards from there.

POSTED BY kit schackner | February 22, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

Beautiful day outside today, no? Yesterday I played hookie, potted up some cuttings, and put some primroses in the ground — their outside relatives are already starting to bloom, so even though they were greenhouse grown, they’ll be OK. Last weekend I did some clean-up to see the tops of the tulips, crocuses and hellebores. The weekend before I washed the fence & garage with bleach to get rid of the mildew.

All this was stuff I planned to do doing a February thaw. But there has been no thaw — there hasn’t been a winter at all. Pretty eerie, no?

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

You’re out of your comfort zone here (stick to running and dogs). Funny how you won’t provide any data for your outlandish claim. Perhaps it’s because you have no idea how to actually do such a search or how to judge whether a source is reliable/objective.

I’m well-versed in science and research. It’s all I’ve done, really, for the past 15 years or so. So yeah, I think I’m much more qualified to speak on the matter than you are. You can think I’m arrogant but I have the training and the experience and it’s worth something.

But, not surprisingly, this back-and-forth will get increasingly nasty and personal. It’s the Baristanet way. Rarely do people come here to actually consider another viewpoint. The only reason I bother engaging with people of your mindset on topics such as this is because, well, I’m a glutton for punishment. No, seriously, because I think that somebody has to stand up to all the misconceptions that get bandied about. Your mind will never change but who knows, maybe somebody who is bored enough to actually read these comments might think twice before believing that climate change can be refuted by somebody based on their shallow understanding of the field as well as the scientific process.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

Rarely do people come here to actually consider another viewpoint. Pot, meet Kettle.

And, not only do I think you’re arrogant, you’re condescending as well.

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

I don’t come here to broaden my mind re: science. Why would I? Who would? There are but a few people that post here that have any science expertise. And that’s fine. What is not fine is people like yourself that are arrogant enough to think they can debunk the experts. There is no more fine an example of arrogance than that.

I do enjoy the humor here, though, although this is one helluva humorless exchange.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 22, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

The counter articles and databases debunking climate change can be found all over the Internet and in the library.

There’s all kinds of nonsense that can be found on the internet. That doesn’t make it factual or true. One side has MOUNTAINS and decades worth of scientific evidence on it’s side. The other has a. religious zealots who don’t “believe” in science (henceforth my comment about the earth being a few thousand years old. At least some “deniers” believe the earth is older, although they almost always go hand in hand with creationism. b. A handful (there used to be 5 but one now says he got paid to lie)of scientists whose work is funded by the energy industry and one scientist who falls into category “a”. God will fix the earth.

It’s kind of sort of skewed by a whole lot. Tons. It’s amazing how a certain segment of rich and powerful have used that wealth and power to convince people to vote against their own self interests. On just about every single issue.

POSTED BY DagT | February 22, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

No Tud I don’t say give up when discussing clean up. I completely support the likely need for alternate energy sources for a variety of reasons. The air in China is difficult to breathe. It can’t be healthy. My empirical evidence is based on my own and fellow traveler’s reactions to air quality there.

As for buildings codes Spiro of course that too makes sense if they will ultimately protect citizens against climate based disasters. One can’t help but wonder if some of the proposed regulations are feeding pockets of a few unnecessarily. That’s a fair consideration despite what the progressive world may proclaim to the contrary. Science is ever evolving as it should.

It amuses me that simply because an opinion which discounts man made climate change is published in the WSJ (which I have read there btw ) is not valid. Yet the Times’ selections on the same topic only reveals truth.

Tud I have on my night table a book given to me by my research scientist friend, used in a university science Ed classes. According to this book man made climate change is not a given. Research is sill needed,

POSTED BY Spiro T. Quayle | February 22, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

DagT, there are always pockets to fill when the law changes, building code changes included. That’s what makes America excessively fertile for lobbyists.
Had the oil industry been more strident this time around, the codes would abolish insulation completely, since it would improve petroleum sales immensely.
Apparently, those fogies are past their prime ( “your powers are weak old man” – Darth to Obiwan in the first Star Wars)
Thank goodness it’s going the other way at this point. A ray of hope in a crazy world.

POSTED BY Martta Rose | February 22, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

One more word on the topic and that’s it, I promise.

Tudlow referred to me as “arrogant” because I don’t share her opinion. It’s not arrogance as much as keeping an open mind about things.

There are plenty of instances in history where scientists believed things to be true, only to have them disproved at a later date. The earth being flat is an obvious one but there are also cases of medical “cures” later found to be without merit, such as the belied that fresh air is a cure for tuberculosis. We now this to be untrue.

Doctors once believed that there was a relationship between the chemical homocysteine levels and heart disease. This has also come under scrutiny in recent years.

So if arrogance means having an open mind, so be it.

POSTED BY jerseygurl | February 22, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

And you have done a brilliant job of pointing out the differences between then and now. Back then, there wasn’t scientific evidence. It was a “belief” based on conjecture. We now KNOW the earth is not flat. We now KNOW that fresh air doesn’t cure TB because we have scientific data that proves that TB is a bacterial infection that needs antibiotics that will kill the bacteria.

It’s not about having an open mind about an opinion – it’s about accepting overwhelming empirical evidence. It would make more sense to have an open mind and question the motives of those who are spending a great amount of time and money to convince people it’s just a hoax.

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

Hi Dag,

I don’t rely on the NYT for info re: climate change. There are some great science journalists out there and some not so good. (As an aside, I don’t trust any science journalist who also labels himself as a libertarian when it comes to the environment, e.g., John Tierney’s piece on Rachel Carson.)

I read lots of science blogs on the topic, written by, you guessed it–scientists!

Nothing is a given in science with 100% certainty–you can’t prove anything, really. But, if the evidence is strong enough, you accept it. And if contradicting evidence comes along that disproves a theory, you revise. It’s a beautiful thing.

Meet me at SB and I’ll take a look at that book! (I have some free time.)

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

Martta, there really are few revolutions in modern science. We have moved beyond the era of the geocentric theory and alchemy. Not that it can’t happen, but it’s rare. Most of science works through incorporation of previous theories (and revising if necessary) not by revolution.

So, I don’t see your stance as being open-minded. And I don’t see me being perturbed because you don’t share my “opinion” because I sense you are using the word to mean the following: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

What to do about climate change, yeah, well, there’s where opinion comes in. Accepting the overwhelming evidence is not about forming an opinion. It’s about accepting a pretty convincing mountain of evidence.

POSTED BY Tudlow | February 22, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

That should read: Accepting climate change is not about forming an opinion. It’s about accepting a pretty convincing mountain of evidence.

And that’s a wrap. I promise! Good night and good luck!

Related Posts:

188 Comments

Leave a Reply

Featured Comment

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information

USEFUL LINKS

Weather

Movie Showtimes

Other Useful Links

BLOGROLL

Baristas

Artists

Culture

Entertainment

Food

Forums

Gardening

Go Green

Health & Fitness

Humor

International

New Jersey

Of Use

Parenting

Personal

Political

Real Estate

Baristanet on Flickr

Browse all photos...

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES