Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 3, 2011
POLITICS: It's The Coverup

I'm about due for the next installment of my "Science and its Enemies on the Left" series, last updated here, and doubtless another example will be today's scoop at RedState showing the Obama Administration deep-sixing the CDC's annual report on abortion statistics.

Really, I feel sorry by this point for anyone who fell for Obama's rhetoric about his fearless support for scientific integrity. Specifically, it's been a bad couple of weeks for advocates of concealing the reality of abortion, and it's going to get worse.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 3:22 PM | Politics 2011 • | Science | Comments (53) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

That does not fall under the category of being anti-science. Politically motivated perhaps, but not anti-science. Frankly, I'd rather have the CDC focus on diseases. Besides, if Guttmacher really does all the legwork, let them publish it.

Posted by: MVH at February 3, 2011 4:37 PM

"Really, I feel sorry by this point for anyone who fell for Obama's rhetoric about his fearless support for scientific integrity. "
--------
Save your pity for the families of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children, slaughtered because those like you fell for the lies of W, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Posted by: Berto at February 4, 2011 12:59 PM

Crank, I doubt many conservatives can speak of any coverups or any other arguments regarding science when you put up so many roadblocks regarding Global Warming and Evolution. You see, some things simply don't depend upon whether you believe in an issue or not. It doesn't matter. You can choose not to believe in gravity, but a hammer will still fall; Global Warming, but the weather will still become extreme (like, uh, now perhaps?); like the origins of our species, and how knowledge of evolution let's us do things like design flu vaccines and not abuse antibiotics.

Claiming abortion stats as science arguments is silly. Ignoring the big pictures because of your "feelings" on an issue.

Posted by: Daryl at February 4, 2011 2:54 PM

Actually, I have a question. Did the CDC -explicitly- tell RedState that it was stopping the report altogether? This is what Erick has in quotes from Rhonda Smith:

Rhonda Smith at the CDC’s press office in Atlanta that the report has been buried indefinitely; the CDC “will not have stats available at any time in the near future” and there “are no plans for them to come out any time soon.”

That, by itself, simply means a delay.

He continues:

"We asked Ms. Smith for a reason that the report wouldn’t be issued anymore. She promised to check around and find out if there was any reason given and get back to us – as of the date of this posting, we have received no further communication from her office."

Did she really confirm that the report wasn't going to be issued at all, or did she just tell him she'd check it out?

Posted by: MVH at February 4, 2011 5:12 PM

MVH - Check today's followup post, which (1) gives a little more of the context and (2) illustrates that the CDC shifted gears in a hurry when this was publicized.

Posted by: Crank at February 4, 2011 5:15 PM

I've read the post, and I still have the same question. When, if ever, did the CDC tell anyone that they weren't going to publish the report at all. That was the point of the original post, that the CDC was refusing to do it at all, and it was all at the behest of the Obama administration. The only evidence I see so far is a big delay. Unless Erick or someone at RedState was explicitly told that the CDC was no longer issuing the report, then he has nothing.

As for shifting gears, all I see is the CDC stating "tentatively this month" as opposed to "not anytime in the near future" - hardly the kind of shift worth noting. Also, the first CDC person was going to get more information, so is it surprising that they've come up with a slightly more definite timeline?

This is exactly what I hate about partisan politics.

Posted by: MVH at February 4, 2011 9:48 PM

MVH, CDC only responded after being shamed. Are you unable to give credit to Red State for shaming them? CDC must have thought data was important, so why were they so sloppy in their explaination.
Berto, haven't W, Cheney and Rumsfeld saved many more Iraqis who were being killed, raped and oppressed by SH & Friends? Why do defend SH? Do you hate democracy? Are you a racist who thinks arabs cannot rule themselfs in a free society? Secretary Albright said half million Iraqi children died from sanctions. Do you approve of killing children?

Posted by: PaulV at February 5, 2011 1:19 PM

"Berto, haven't W, Cheney and Rumsfeld saved many more Iraqis who were being killed, raped and oppressed by SH & Friends? Why do defend SH? Do you hate democracy? Are you a racist who thinks arabs cannot rule themselfs in a free society? Secretary Albright said half million Iraqi children died from sanctions. Do you approve of killing children?"
----------------
I see nothing that makes me think W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld saved "many more" Iraqis who were being killed, raped and oppressed. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.
Also, I don't see how being against the spending of nearly a trillion dollars and the wholesale slaughter of innocent women and children is in any way a defense of SH. Nice job with the false dichotomy, though.
I love democracy. In fact, as a US citizen, I'd like to see them try it here. Though, it takes an informed citizenry to make it work well, so we'd have to change the media from the current one (which misinforms, scares, and distracts the citizens) to one which is not a propaganda arm for the corporate rich.
No, I'm not racist. Nor will I woo those who are. If I run for President, you'll never see me kick off my campaign in Philadelphia, MS.
I do NOT approve of killing children.

Posted by: Berto at February 5, 2011 3:56 PM

Berto, so you admit that you have no facts to support your ravings. Why should I have to give you data when you provide nothing but rants? Were the racists in MS your fellow democrats? Carter depended on the Old democrat south to win election. You were wrong about Iraq. You look down on arabs. Why? CNN spike stories about SH & Co killing raping and maiming Iraqi civilians. Why do the Iraqis hate AQ now? Because AQ was killing Iraqis and raping the women. It was the Iraqis themselves who ran AQ out of Iraq. By doing so they proved they deserved right to govern themselves. So you missed all the stories of the mass graves in Iraq of people SH killed and of his use of chemical weapons and the million + killed in the Iraq-Iran war. Google it and fill in your lack of knowledge. Heard of Wikileaks? It disclose that WMDs were discovered in Iraq.

Posted by: PaulV at February 5, 2011 11:27 PM

Berto, so you admit that you have no facts to support your ravings. Why should I have to give you data when you provide nothing but rants? Were the racists in MS your fellow democrats? Carter depended on the Old democrat south to win election. You were wrong about Iraq. You look down on arabs. Why? CNN spike stories about SH & Co killing raping and maiming Iraqi civilians. Why do the Iraqis hate AQ now? Because AQ was killing Iraqis and raping the women. It was the Iraqis themselves who ran AQ out of Iraq. By doing so they proved they deserved right to govern themselves. So you missed all the stories of the mass graves in Iraq of people SH killed and of his use of chemical weapons and the million + killed in the Iraq-Iran war. Google it and fill in your lack of knowledge. Heard of Wikileaks? It disclose that WMDs were discovered in Iraq.

Posted by: PaulV at February 5, 2011 11:27 PM

"MVH, CDC only responded after being shamed. Are you unable to give credit to Red State for shaming them? CDC must have thought data was important, so why were they so sloppy in their explaination."

They "must have"?? There is a delay, and it happens to have to do with an abortion report, so naturally it "must have" a nefarious purpose behind it. This is the worst of partisan politics - assigning motives and blame with only the scantist of evidence.

Posted by: MVH at February 6, 2011 6:55 AM

MVH, are you an apologist for Global Warming Alarmists who wanted to hide the raw data contrary to scientific method that requires science to be examined to be taken seriously? LOL!

Posted by: PaulV at February 6, 2011 10:37 AM

Crank, your Conservative and Republican values that makes you right stuff likes this is sad. Why? Well, first watch this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding

Which leads me to conclude that you, your Republican and Tea Party compadres can only be called "humanish."

Posted by: Daryl at February 6, 2011 12:29 PM

PaulV,

No, I'm not an apologist for Global Warming, but that is beside the point. The fact is that Redstate, like many of the left-wing sites as well, have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could possibly be construed as political. Combine that with RedState's deep mistrust of government, and you wind up with conspiracy-theory stories like this one.

The simpler explanation is that the CDC faced some kind of delay or problem that has nothing to do with politics, particularly since the report, from what I understand, is basically statistics that have been used by both sides of the abortion debate. I see no evidence thus far that the CDC explicitly confirmed that they were canceling the report, which would be really the only possible political angle to this. It's beginning to sound like RedState jumped to this conclusion.

Posted by: MVH at February 6, 2011 1:22 PM

Daryl, laughable that you let a second rate comedy show do your thinking.
MVH, Global Warming Alarmism is just one example of administration war on science. They have been held in comtempt for scientist said about oil spill is another. Why give administration the benefit of a doubt with the record.

Posted by: PaulV at February 6, 2011 1:52 PM

PaulV,
You're confused, son.
You were the one with the rant about W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld saving Iraqi lives. I was the one who asked for the proof, which even with the multiple replies you did not provide.
What data would you like from me? That there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths the US government has been trying to downplay? Okay: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/23/102493/wikileaks-revelations-come-as.html

Secondly, Google "Southern strategy" and learn how the GOP has been wooing racists since Nixon to win national elections. (In their defense, they need the bigot vote because there aren't enough CEOs and multi-millionaires to provide a majority).

Third, are the voices in your head telling you I hate arabs? Because I have said or written no such thing.

Fourth, yes SH was an evil man. Yet, St. Ronnie of Cut and Run cheered and cheered for him in his war with Iran and his use of chemical weapons. Funny how deaths in the Iran/ Iraq war have value to you, but those killed by US-fired high-tech weaponry get a shrug of your shoulders.

Yes, I read Wikileaks (BTW,, will you match my donation to them?), and saw that WMD remnants have been found in Iraq. However, the Wikileaks war logs do not reveal evidence of a massive WMD program by the SH regime (the primary rationale for your beloved war).

Finally, "fellow democrats'? Really? You think I'm a Democrat? You are either willfully ignorant or you're just trying to get a rise out of me.

Posted by: Berto at February 6, 2011 2:33 PM

"Which leads me to conclude that you, your Republican and Tea Party compadres ..."
----------------
Daryl, Redundant. The Tea Party and Republicans are exactly the same people (mostly straight-up liars, but with some ignoramuses thrown in for cable TV ratings). It's just a name change they came up with after they were run out of the government in 2008. Same people, same funding, same failed economic theories.

Posted by: Berto at February 6, 2011 2:43 PM

Little berto, I am happy to say I am not your son. You admit your ignorance about how many people SK killed and oppressed. Since you can use google do some research and see how many more Iraqis would have died if he or his sons were still in power. Unaware he funded terrorism in Mideast? Yes, AQ and other Iraqis killed too many Iraqis in Iraq as your link said, but less than SH was killing. Why do blame US for those killings by arabs. You imply that the Iraqis are unable to govern themselves with your link. How many UN official were corrupted by Oild for Food fraud? The Southern stragedy resulted in a lot of democrats who voted against Civil Rights Act getting voted out of Office. The New South is better for that. So are you a supporter of Khomeine and the Imans and wanted to see Iraq fall under their rule? As you link said most the Iraqis were killed by AK47s and IEDs, not by American. How many Afghans were killed after being outed by Wikileaks? Is their blood on your hands? Was SH's plan to keep ability to restart WMDs programs after his bribes got UN sanctions lifted through his bribery plan? Unaware that Tea Party movement is a successor to Pork Busters in 2008 and their first efforts were aimed to defeat Republicans who supported overspending? No wonder that fiscal conservatives were able to defeat democrats spendthrifts in November.

Posted by: PaulV at February 6, 2011 5:29 PM

Darryl, were you upset that a whistle blower leaked emails that had been gathered for FOI request that revealed the coverup of the bad science by the Global Warming Alarmists?
Those faux scienctists were in it for easy grant money.

Posted by: PaulV at February 6, 2011 5:32 PM

Yawn. The CDC decided not to speand public money on the report, so no report was published.

When you have some, you know, facts, supporting a claim that the decision is politcally motivated, come back. For now, all you have is the speculation of the clinically paranoid.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 6, 2011 5:45 PM

Magrooder,
Out of touch with reality?

Posted by: PaulV at February 6, 2011 10:17 PM

"...there aren't enough CEOs and multi-millionaires to provide a majority" [for the GOP]

These folks largely back the obamanish one. For convenient examples see Soros, George and Buffett, not Jimmy.

Posted by: Dai Alanye at February 7, 2011 2:44 AM

Just saw the new post at RedState, with the e-mail showing that the report was in preparation stages in November. How does RedState react to this? It's proof that the report was being killed.

This is officially shameless.

Posted by: MVH at February 7, 2011 7:12 AM

MVH,
With the administration's record of being held in contempt of court for lying about what scientists said, why give them a break? What reason was there to keep this double top secret and not even letting PR people know. This is a report that has been published annually and eagerly anticipated. It is like the dog that did not bark in the night.
I thought the administration pretended to be open and it seems that they make up excuses when cornered.

Posted by: PaulV at February 7, 2011 8:55 AM

"why give them a break?"

This isn't about whether you should give the admin a break. This is about throwing out wild accusations with basically no evidence. A delay in in issuing a gov't report is not a reason to start throwing around conspiracy theories and jumping to the conclusion that the report was secretly killed for all time.

Posted by: MVH at February 7, 2011 9:07 AM

Daryl - Stewart could use to get his facts straight, and in any event, if your idea of "values" is spending taxpayer dollars putting innocent children to death, you can keep them.

MVH - The point here is, the email - assuming it's genuine, and this being Media Matters that's a big assumption - establishes that Magrooder's claim that the report wasn't compiled to save money is a complete fallacy, as is the CDC's post hoc claim that the necessary data was unavailable. Clearly, the report was compiled on the same schedule it's followed for the past forty years, and somebody in the chain put a stop to it. We're entitled to find out who and why.

Posted by: Crank at February 7, 2011 9:54 AM

Where was all this curiousity about who made decisions and why they were made when, for example, the WH outed Valerie Plame?

Also, I did not claim that the CDC decision was made as a budgetary move, I was noting the irony of the "government spending hawks" denouncing the government for not spending money.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 7, 2011 10:15 AM

Crank,

RedState can investigate all it wants, but when it starts throwing around accusations of conspiracy with the thinnest of facts, it takes a credibility hit with just about anyone who isn't already a convert.

I don't happen to take Media Matters at their word either, but from the get-go this just looks like your garden-variety delay. It doesn't even make much sense that it is politically motivated, particularly if it's just a delay. Media Matters or the CDC would really have be lying on this one:

(1) They report that abortion study didn't always come out in November, though it had for a number of years, and that they had a history of getting delayed and inaccurate reporting from various states;

(2) They report that, according to the CDC, the e-mail that spokesperson Karen Hunter told Media Matters that "the reason [the report] didn't come out the last weekend in November is that they were waiting for some data that was delayed," which caused the report to be submitted to the MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) staff on November 12, months later than in previous years.

So, unless you think they are lying, it routinely took several months from the submission of the report for editing to the final publication, and the fact that the report was submitted for editing in mid-November would push back its ultimate publication.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102040037

Keep in mind that my main point is that RedState rushed to judgment as to *why* the report wasn't published on the thinnest of facts, hurling around accusations that are wildly speculative.

Posted by: MVH at February 7, 2011 11:00 AM

MVH, Magruder, red State got results, which is difficult with this administration's history. The farmer told city slicker that it is necessary to treat a mule with gentleness to get him to follow directions, But first hit the muke with a two by four to get its attention. It is important that any story includes who, what, how and why rather than letting administration stonewall as you prefer.
Magruder, redeem your credibility and admit that SOS Powell's aide Sir Richard Armitage revealed the involvement of Plame to Novak and Woodward. Armitage did not resigned after Bush requested anyone who leaked Plame story to Novak resign. No one in White House knew who leaker was until it was reveled by Woodward. Fitzgerald knew but let the lie you repeated fester for reasons of his own. Man, have you no shame?

Posted by: PaulV at February 7, 2011 1:12 PM

"MVH, Magruder, red State got results, which is difficult with this administration's history."

Again, unless you think the CDC is flat-out lying, which at this point looks incredibly doubful, then RedState got no results at all (other than a loss of credibility), given that the report apparently was scheduled to be published anyway.

And no, the ends do not justify the means. If the left pulled something like this, you'd be all over them, and rightly so. If you want to complain about be stonewalled for info, then yell to the rafters about being stonewalled. Make a FOIA request, get your congressman to get information. It's an entirely different story to speculate that Obama and the CDC are orchestrating a massive cover-up and conspiracy. This is low-rent politics.

Posted by: MVH at February 7, 2011 1:33 PM

Man, have you no shame?

You must be new here, right?

Posted by: spongeworthy at February 7, 2011 1:36 PM

PaulV,
You are right about one thing: ALL government actions and decisions should be transparent and "out there". From Cheney's meeting with energy company executives to Obama's backroom meetings with insurance companies which led to the death of the public option. From the outing of a CIA agent to the backdoor deal to wait on the release of Iranian hostages.
ALL of it. No matter which "team" is trying to hide their
actions.
------
I'll think you're the least bit serious about the "oil for food" fraud, when you admit it was a Halliburton offshoot which traded with SH's Iraq while the American embargo was ongoing. Yes, THAT Dick Cheney. The same one who has been lining his pockets on government revenue (taxes), while lying to you for lo these many years.
Call out the war criminal, PaulV, and at least make me think your concern is for something other than scoring "points" for your "team".
--------
Crank, Dal here thinks Obama and the Dems are better leaders when it comes to business. Do you want to field that one?
-----------
All,
Anyone that reads RedState for anything other than the unintentional comedy is not someone who should be taken seriously. Erick Erickson, for one of many, spouts so much nonsense he makes Palin sound like Churchill.

Posted by: Berto at February 7, 2011 4:01 PM

Yes Pope PaulV. We know that now, but back in the day, at Stonewall Central, no one was talking. And no one at Red State was asking any questions. Why not? Because the point of the exercise was not to seek the truth -- that Bush lied about in the State of the Union -- but to get back back at Joe Wilson (an insufferable gas bag, but still).

Posted by: Magrooder at February 7, 2011 4:27 PM

Will there be a big chapter on redefining rape or is that not science-y enough?

Posted by: jim at February 7, 2011 4:56 PM

Jim gets a medal for not having read up thread.

Mark of dishonesty: anybody who uses the term "redefining rape" without mentioning that they're talking about a bill limited to federal funding of abortion.

And of course, you don't "redefine" a word by adding an adjective.

Posted by: Crank at February 7, 2011 4:59 PM

Magrooder, Have you forgotten that Joe Wilson wrote in NYTimes article that US should not invade Iraq because we would have too many loses to WMDs (chemical & biological)? Bush relied on information that he had from slamdunk Tenet. Too bad CIA had wasted away before he became president Whatever business Haliburton did with Iraq under UN Oil for Food deal, it was the UN officials that SH bribed who would have lifted sanctions and allowed SH to continue his WMDs. If SH had only waited a short while he would have nukes when he invaded Kuwait. BTW, youb think an administration that was held in contempt of court for lying about what scientists said has any credibility. Kudos to Red State for making administration explain their actions. Sucks for you that administration a=was exposed for lying. Admit that CIA agent was exposed by Corn and Armitrage and stop repeating liberal lies. BTW I am not even catholic.

Posted by: PaulV at February 7, 2011 5:06 PM

I'm beginning to think I wasted all that time studying history, international relations and law. I should've just picked a political party, and then with every major event, construe the "facts" in my favor and call the other side a bunch of liars and cheats.

On the bright side, it's been 35 comments and we still haven't seen the typical 9/11 threadjack. I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: MVH at February 8, 2011 10:39 AM

Crank, of course, goes into uber-hypocritical mode when it comes to topics dear to his heart. Nice try big guy but everyone knows where you stand on this topic and you would lie, cheat, steal to get what you want and limiting rape to a certain set of circumstances would be fine with you to prevent affected women from receiving Medicaid assistance. Whatever. Write your super-science-y article that was laughable the first time around.

Posted by: jim at February 8, 2011 12:01 PM

This is also on Media Matters - again, unless there is outrageous lying going on, RedState was way out of line. Here's the update, with the editor's remarks in quotes:

Ronald Moolenaar, the editor-in-chief of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), CDC's primary scientific publication, writes to explain the process involved in producing the Abortion Surveillance report:

"Typically MMWR publishes the Abortion Surveillance Summary in November after receiving the draft from the Program during the summer. This year we were informed that it would be arriving late; it arrived in our office on November 12, 2011.

Each submission to MMWR goes through multiple rounds of scientific and editorial review. This involves a back and forth exchange between MMWR and the authors to revise the draft to improve its clarity, readability and accuracy. That is followed by contributions from our Desktop publishing team, who use Adobe End Design to arrange the tables, graphics and pages of text so that they most effectively communicate the information. Our usual turnaround time for publications such as this is 12-16 weeks, but this interval can be longer especially if includes the holidays or winter storms.

This issue on Abortion Surveillance is scheduled to be posted on-line on February 24th with a February 25, 2011 publication date. At this point, we are not aware of any delays expected in the next report, which is therefore tentatively scheduled for November."

Posted by: MVH at February 8, 2011 2:54 PM

PaulV,

I don't care what religion you are, Ii was just yanking your chain.

But, when you write, "Magrooder, Have you forgotten that Joe Wilson wrote in NYTimes article that US should not invade Iraq because we would have too many loses to WMDs (chemical & biological)," I have to wonder if you actually read the op-ed or if you simply heard Faux News or red something like Red State.

Wilson wrote, "I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him." The point of his piece was that the Bush adminstration selectively used intelligence information to justify a war.

Posted by: Magrooder at February 8, 2011 3:11 PM

Magrooder, Good to hear that you are not an anti-Catholic bigot? Since SH refused to allowed inspections perhaps an invasion was the required way to end "the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein". It did disarm the murderous dictator.
The evidence Bush had was given him by WJC and that opinion was shared by rest of world. Even Joe Wilson's tea with a former official of Niger revealed the information that a minister of Iraq did talk of importing something from Niger. What did Niger have to export besides yellowcake? Where did Libya get it yellowcake? Why did SH bribe all those UN officials anyway? Why avoid those questions except you are afraid of the answers.
MVH, thanks forn telling us what the results Red State got from CDC. Curious that they did not let than information out earlier.

Posted by: PaulV at February 8, 2011 6:25 PM

RedState was never misled in the first place. They wrongly and without justification interpreted a delay to be a cancellation. The situation was nowhere near fishy - a run-of-the-mill statistical report gathered from third parties and well outside of election season. Instead of waiting for more information from the person to whom they spoke, they decided to play the government conspiracy card due mainly to galloping paranoia - "they must be hiding something," "they don't want abortion statistics to be published" - give me a break.

Then the follow-up when the email was released - "November 12 - see, it's proof they buried it!" Why not speculate? After all, Erick Erickson is obviously an expert on the CDC and its publication schedules, so why bother to look into it when you can just assume your preferred political outcome?

They jumped to a number of conclusions with no basis, and now it's looking worse and worse. I have no problem calling it on the left when I see it, now I calling it on the right. This is completely shameful politics.

Posted by: MVH at February 8, 2011 8:53 PM

Wrong.

CDC is now lying about what they said to RS. Having talked to the people involved, people I know well and trust, I am quite certain of this. The CDC's spokeswoman had been quite clear that there was no plan to publish the report.

Posted by: Crank at February 8, 2011 8:57 PM

Crank,

I'm simply going by what information Erick had at the time from his own posts on the subject: the CDC “will not have stats available at any time in the near future” and there “are no plans for them to come out any time soon.” "Any time soon" does not mean "never." The spokesperson obviously didn't know all the facts, which is why she said she'd get more information. If this person confirmed that the report wasn't coming out "at all" - I'm sure Erick would have quoted that too.

I have no big reason to defend the CDC, but as I said, there's not much reason this smells fishy in the first place.

Posted by: MVH at February 8, 2011 9:14 PM

MVH, so why did CDC lie?

Posted by: PaulV at February 8, 2011 11:38 PM

I'm still not convinced at all based on Erick's posts that they did "lie." Obviously they weren't talking to the most well-informed person at the CDC, who promised more information, but that's not damning evidence of anything. Then RedState jumps all over the e-mail without knowing anything about the CDC's publication schedule. How do you explain the editor-in-chief's explanation, which he's also given to FoxNews?? Again, if the editor is lying, it's an unbelievable whopper, as anyone who worked at the CDC past or present would be able to refute it.

Posted by: MVH at February 9, 2011 6:46 AM

MVH, Red State was not gullible and called out an administration with history of lying about science and got results. You agreed that Administration was held in contempt of court for lying about what the scientsits said?

Posted by: PaulV at February 9, 2011 12:24 PM

Will Bill O'Reilly be adding a chapter on the science of tides in this updated science-y article?

Posted by: jim at February 10, 2011 12:31 PM

"Save your pity for the families of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children, slaughtered because those like you fell for the lies of W, Cheney and Rumsfeld."

Yeah, pity for them and all the people who died during the liberation of their nations from other tyrants. If only Hussein, Hitler, Mussolini etc. had been nice no one need died. Unfortunately wars of liberation claim all lives, not only the guilty. Now slam the people who think freedom from tyranny isn't worth the trouble.

Posted by: tehag at February 12, 2011 6:59 AM

"Now slam the people who think freedom from tyranny isn't worth the trouble."
Check the site archives, tehag. I've been calling for a US government representing the people, not corporations, for years.

Posted by: Berto at February 13, 2011 12:23 PM

Berto, are you denying that corpoartions are a group of people and that the civil right of those people should deserve respect? I think you believe that some people are more equal than others (stock holders).

Posted by: PaulV at February 13, 2011 6:58 PM

PaulV,
I believe no such thing.
The civil rights of all people deserve equal respect.
Stock holders should have all the civil rights of the poorest among us.
I see the corporation as I see guns.
Corporations don't commit crime, people (usually executive decision-makers) commit crime. Corporations are just the weapon used to commit the crime. Like guns, they should be strictly regulated as to minimize the harm they can do to the citizenry (yes, including the stock holders too).
Also, those that use corporations to commit crimes should be sent to prison.

Posted by: Berto at February 14, 2011 3:46 AM

Corporations have given people jobs and support the government. Hurting corporations destroys jobs as FDR found out when he raised taxes in 1937 and prolonged depression. Fortunately voters refudiated democrats in 1938 election and FDR eased off his attacks on business. If seems the refudiation of by voters in 2010 will get Obama to ease off his attacks on business.
When seconds count, police can be there in minutes. The second amendment reduces crime, fact.

Posted by: PaulV at February 14, 2011 9:07 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg