.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Friday, March 30, 2007


I saw this Headline today:

Nude Chocolate Jesus Angers Catholics.

No Kidding! What else would the purpose be of having a nude chocolate Jesus other than to anger someone. How pathetic.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I just saw a chocolate cross in the grocery store today. While not exactly the same thing, is it not also sacrilegious?

7:11 PM, April 05, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, March 29, 2007


Here is a link that notes the 9th circuit Court of Appeals, the crazy california circuit that makes all kinds of stupid an innane rulings, is currently 0-9 for their last nine cases sent to the Supreme Court:

When Chief Justice Roberts testified in his confirmation hearing that he hoped to increase unanimity on the Court, skeptical observers did not realize that he had a secret plan: grant more Ninth Circuit cases. That strategy continued to pay dividends today, as the Court unanimously reversed the CA9 for the sixth time this Term, and the CA9 ran its overall record to 0-9. Only time will tell whether the Ninth Circus can match the 1976 Buccaneers’ 0-14 mark. You may recall that the Bucs’ coach, when asked about the execution of the Tampa Bay offense, responded, “I’m in favor of it.” While no one is proposing execution here (which the CA9 would stay anyway), you have to admit that this is getting kind of ridiculous.

Pathetic is a better description.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Just because the Ninth Circuit finds traditional law and the Constitution antiquated, and is generally viewed as kooky, doesn't mean they must be overturned every single time, surely. Isn't there a blind squirrel rule that should kick in here at some point?

11:58 AM, March 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are assuming a completely blind squirrel, selecting spots at random. Remember if you want to score ZERO on a test, you have to be smart enough to know all the right answers, so you can pick the wrong ones. The reasonable conclusion is that the Ninth Circus knows what its decision ought to be in every case, and then does the opposite.

J. Ewing

6:30 PM, March 29, 2007  

Post a Comment

An Idea on the Gonzales Mess

Ponder this idea on the Gonzales mess. It is clear that the firing of the eight attorneys is all about politics with the Democrats. Bush should try this: He should accept AG Gonzales resignation. The resignation should be conditioned to when a new AG would be confirmed by the Senate. Then Bush should nominate another AG, a real hard ass, who will publicaly state that he as AG will not cooperate with the Congress on any of the BS made up political games regarding the eight attorneys. Then we will see if the Senate can confirm the new AG.

If they do, we get a much tougher AG. Good for us. If they refuse to confirm this AG, then the Democrats are in a spot for playing politics on their end... making it seem like they want the investigations to go on and on....

The worst would be if Bush nominates an "acceptable" candidate to the Democrats. That would be giving up to the Dems demands.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

What Should Britain Do?

Everyone has heard by now about the 15 British Soldiers abducted by the Iranian Mullahs. It is also clear that these soldiers were not operating in Iranian waters.

Its sad, but Britain is almost powerless to do anything on their own without U.S. assistance. U.S. assistance is always in question because the Hagel-liberals in Congress are willing at any time to cut and run. Further, the British public is so anti-war that they really have no sustainable military option. (Its the 1930s all over again). Economically, they would probably not be able to agree with the other EU nations to impose sanctions on Iran. Besides, some of the other nations argue that it is Britains own fault for being in the middle east in the first place (i.e. Chuck Hagel's argument) What should Britain do?

The could take a stand. They could start attacking Iranian assets. Or Instead Britain could accept that they are now a small power, and do what small powers do best. Britain should adopt the tactics of Iran by causing all kinds of problems via sabotage or other sub rosa efforts on Iran and play the same game of denial that the leftists and terrorists have been playing so well for the last few decades.

If they do neither of the above things and wait out Iran on the Hostages, then too bad for all of us..

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Britain should stick to a few principles.

1) This is not about the their Marines. Acting (correctly) that they are a small part of a much bigger deal will only increase their chance of coming home safe.

2) Tell the Iranians that keeping the soldiers is an act of war in which case, fine, the sailors are prisoners of war. But that the UK and Iran are now at war.

3) Do what Gingrich said to do. Tell the Iranians that they can keep the sailors as long as they like but if they are not released in one week, then the single Iranian gasoline refinery will be destroyed and all incoming gasoline tankers will be blockaded. Within a month, Iran will be out of gasoline.

10:28 AM, March 30, 2007  

Post a Comment

Monday, March 26, 2007

We're #5!

To my telephone-poll-worshipping friends, three percent may not sound like much, but considering Ron Paul is tops on the internet world of Digg and running neck-and-neck at MySpace and the like, we'll consider that the chip-crunching, television-watching, couch-potato, telephone-answering underclass is just starting to catch up.

Oh, that twenty-eight percent that's "Not Sure?" Go ahead and throw them in Paul's column, 'cause that's how it's trending.

I'm curious about what excuse PJmedia is going to use to keep Dr. Paul off the poll now. The pantless basement-dwellers playing wannabe-MSM-when-we-grow-up will think of something, I am confident.

Reference: Zogby today, March 26.

UPDATE 3/27/07 Among women, Thompson and Paul are tied at 6% (http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20070326221150916)

MySpace banner for RonPaul2008

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Insane Property Taxes

Not fully recovered from my shock at receiving the assessed value for 2008 property taxes on my homestead, I am entering the outrage stage. FOURTEEN percent, fifty-frickin-three thousand dollars, is what the economic geniuses at city hall say my value has increased! In what world has real estate gone up 14% in the last year????? (This after a 12% increase last year.)

Have my fellow bloggers' assessed fantasy values increased similarly? Is this a shameful manuever by local governments to place pressure on the legislature for increased local government aid? I'll tell you what it is: it is theft. Pure and simple legalized theft. At gunpoint.

Blogger Air Marshall said...

That is what Prop 13 was all about in California. Rampant tax increases based on ever expanding property evaluations. Just remember, there is no amount that is ever "enough" when it comes to taxes. This way they do not have to get an increase through the legislature or the city council.

10:31 AM, March 25, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

What would Laurie Swanson say if "predatory lenders" suddenly jacked their rates to 14% instead of rates half that which are causing her so much anxiety?

5:58 PM, March 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do realize, don't you, that you can get a rebate from the state if your property taxes increase beyond a certain amount or percentage?

J. Ewing

6:59 PM, March 25, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Time for our own Prop. 13. Give it a go, Scrib, you can lead this. Sounds like you are mad enough.

12:28 AM, March 26, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Btw, I sweet-talked the assessor down by $38,000. I'm very proud of myself.

9:16 AM, April 06, 2007  

Post a Comment

Monday, March 19, 2007

Pajamas Media Exposed

Vox Day, in his World Net Daily Commentary, pulls the pants off Pajamas Media for dropping Ron Paul from their Micky Mouse poll the week after Paul trounced Giuliani and Company. I understand their fear: when people know about Paul and understand his positions, they support his candicacy for President. Such unauthorized support threatens to capsize the kingmakers' docile constituency, to wrest control from the MSM and their wannabes (such as Pajamas Media).

Both of our faithful blog readers will recall my outrage over the anti-democratic tactics of the silly little basement-dwellers. But I have been vindicated. Of the polls that do include Dr. Paul, he is winning many overwhelmingly.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I think that what this mostly shows is the stupidity of internet "polls." They are easily manipulated. There is
no evidence of a poll of randomly selected people where Paul gets more than 2%.

From American Research Group

March 8, 2007 - National Presidential Preferences

The races for the Democratic and Republican nominations are close among likely Democratic and Republican primary voters (those saying they will definitely vote in a primary or participate in a caucus in 2008).

The following results are based on nationwide samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and 600 likely Republican primary voters conducted March 2-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for each sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time.

Brownback 1%
Gilmore 1%
Giuliani 34%
Gingrich 12%
Hagel 1%
Huckabee 1%
Hunter -
McCain 30%
Pataki 1%
Paul 1%
Romney 7%
Tancredo 1%
Thompson 1%
Undecided 9%

Paul, 1%. That means out of 600 people they called, between 4 and 8 said Paul. The idea that Ron Paul could be elected is fantasy.

6:08 PM, March 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

So this poll is of people who answer their phones? Does anyone on this blog answer their phone if they don't know who is calling? If you even still have a landline, that is, and it's not unlisted.

Telephone polls have been seeing increasing troubles and decreasing reliability for the above reasons. I doubt their formulas work anymore.

It's true that on the 'net, the pollees seek out the polls. The pollees are going to be relatively educated about the candidates and actually interested in voting a year in advance of the first primary.

So we're not talking apples and oranges here.

Paul is hot on the 'net, including MySpace, YouTube and certain sectors of the blogosphere. Wasn't this how Howard Dean got going?

6:44 PM, March 19, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

To be a problem, it's not enough that lots of people don't answer their phone, or if they do, refuse to talk to pollsters. You need that the class of people who do talk to pollsters answer differently, as a group, than those who don't.

So you are telling me that these multitudes of Ron Paulites are more unwilling to talk to pollsters than the population as a whole?

8:38 PM, March 19, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Paulites are more intelligent, more affluent than the general population at the moment. They are the hardcore, more likely to take advantage of newer technology, the internet, and, yes, screen their calls.

The people sitting at home answering their phones are the ones watching television and the only names they know are Giuliani and Gingrich.

If we do our job correctly and get Paul's message out, neighbor to neighbor, MySpace friend to MySpace friend, blogger to blogger, his name recognition will improve. Paul can only go up, where Giuliani, McCain and Newt can only go down.

We are a frickin' year away from the first primary!

8:54 AM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I don't answer my phone. But, if I did, I would not vote for Paul. Count me as one who doesn't answer their phone and isn't voting for Paul.

Maybe Fred Thompson will get in. What do people think of Fred?

11:13 AM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Didn't someone imply at the last debate that Chuck Hagel, being an infantryman, was a real soldier, while John McCain, being a pilot, was not.

I am still pondering that one. Maybe I should watch Midway again.

11:15 AM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Scribbler, I thought the same thing about telephone polls before the last election... before we got crushed by the great blue wave. All the "conservatives" who decided to stay home should be happy now as the state legislature proposes one tax increase after another.

11:18 AM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

John McCain has trampled on the Constitution and the very First Amendment, specifically free speech. Were he a war hero, or even Winston Churchill, he'd still be an enemy of freedom.

And S'aurus, my dear nattering nabob of negativism, I did not stay home, in fact. Pawlenty did just fine without me. Kiffmeyer, Johnson and Awada, despite my vote for them, did not.

That Thompson's name has come up does indicate that the GOP faithful are not happy with the "big names" already before them. BUT, he does not have my support. Ron Paul or bust!

12:13 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

National Journal Rankings

The most conservative member of Congress seeking the Republican nomination - based on lifetime voting records - is Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, with a score of 82.5. The most conservative score possible was 99.

Lifetime scores for the other Republicans:

-Sen. Sam Brownback, 81
-Rep. Tom Tancredo, 75.9
-Sen. John McCain, 71.8
-Sen. Chuck Hagel, 71.5
-Rep. Ron Paul, 51.7

Surprisingly, Barack Obama was the most liberal of Deomcrats seeking the Presidency at 84.3, beating out Dennis Kucinich at 79.4

1:39 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I wouldn't give the National Journal much credence. They say Paul's fundraising projection is $500k. He raised $500k in the month before he announced. I wouldn't be surprised if that's doubled within a month from now, and so forth.

I can't find how they base their conservative index score. If they base it on how often someone votes with the GOP, it's bunk. If they throw the war in there, that's not very conservative of them. I can say that Paul has NEVER voted for a tax increase and votes against spending more often than any other GOP congressmen, sometimes as a solitary nay vote.

1:47 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Paul sounds like a great candidate... if he only supported the offensive against the terrorists and radical islam, I might consider voting for him. Without that, he is not a legitimate candidate.

2:02 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Well, that ain't gonna happen. There are candidates out there for those who approve of spending of epic proportions for irretractable boondoggles, but Paul believes in lower taxes and less spending. There are many of us who subscribe to his view, and I dare say, we outnumber the big spending fans, at least within the liberty wing of the GOP.

2:29 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I also believe in less spending and less taxes. But, I also support going on the offensive against radical Islam.

My views are similar to those of Jason Lewis.

Even Wellington, who tended to win his battles while on defense, still had to get himself to the battlefield.

Ron Paul would rather have us sit here doing nothing.

2:44 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

The Danes always had a hard time staying at home minding their own business too. Always itching to conquer England and those misguided Christians.

Why merely mind the homefront when we can be out killing people and breaking things on the taxpayer's dime? Hell, all we've got here to worry about is a porous border, if you can even call it a border. But that's so BORING. War, now that's fun, sexy.

2:53 PM, March 20, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

My Space friends as of today:

Republicans +/- % #
Paul rising +13.0% 4,250
Romney rising +17.1% 2,455
McCain rising +278.5% 1,885
Giuliani rising +24.1% 1,349
Tancredo rising +1.6% 1,177
Huckabee rising +15.3% 737
Hunter — 562
Brownback rising +11.8% 266

3:08 PM, March 21, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Hey! What about Fred Thompson??? Your hot blog buddies "drop" him because he was winning too many polls? He is my man!

12:05 AM, March 23, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Does Freddie Tom have a MySpace page? Or is he not a hip cat like "Dr. No" Paul?

12:31 PM, March 23, 2007  
Blogger ReTorte said...

Tommy Thompson or Bust!! I'd even accept Ed Thompson (his bro) as a Libertarian candidate for President in comparison to the other options out there.. I'd vote for Ed before I could bring myself to vote for Giuliani or McCain.. At least with the Thompson boys we know what to expect!

Alas, if only Tommy could get some more support on the national stage I think he'd make a great President..

2:47 AM, March 24, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Debate March 14
The Chief Peril of the West is Not Terrorism; it is Decay

(Please note the guest lecture preceding the debate by Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society, on How to Lose Two Wars at Once, beginning at six p.m.)

The John Adams Society

Roger L. Belfay, Chairman
John J. Pope, Secretary
Larry Colson, Chief Whip
Marianne Stebbins, Chancellor

March 2007

THE ENEMY MAY BE A FOOL, and it may be you. But, rather than look in the mirror, perhaps you’d prefer to discover some vile state sponsored Manhattan Project of Propaganda for getting Americans to reject Common Sense. Say, one from which agent provocateurs of both cunning and unwitting persuasions emanate to sow frivolity among the young whilst beating a drum of paranoia to energize fools. They’re the ones who employ lawyers in order to make the U.S. Constitution appear to invalidate itself. Undoubtedly, they instigate suspicion about that pillar of American strength, rugged individualism and its family buttress, and they endeavor to unlink the ethic of work from the idea of private property, promulgating instead carelessness and habits of incremental self-destruction. Without family, property and country, there is nothing to fight for but that which the sword dictates. So, not your buildings but your identity need be destroyed, and when you don’t know who you are, you only understand that you couldn’t have lost that to which you are unable to be entitled. One by one your political leaders sip of this poison that blinds them to the sanctity of American sovereignty, or in protecting strategic assets for that matter. This program has long been underway… you think, or are there just too many fools? What’s the difference?

Al Qaeda sends its thanks. Billions of Dollars for Iraq’s reconstruction detoured its way into unknown hands. Billions in aid to Pakistan since 9/11 have effectively augmented development of its nuclear missile program as terrorists bide their time close by. And here are some more trashy tabloids for your children to see at the supermarket checkout and some extra repugnant TV for you. You see, smart terrorists need not terrorize. Why bother to bomb someone who you think will burn out anyway? Events of terror would only awaken and focus Americans against an identifiable enemy. Better to let them stay preoccupied with sitcom derelicts in the Devil’s lair with gluttony and a glass forever half empty. One’s strength to defend against terrorism is only equal to one’s willingness to defend the mind against decay.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the next attack could mean a serious disruption to your regularly scheduled programming. Would this not be a truly felt threat? Further, a big attack could trip us into a military state which at this stage of the game will strain the economy. How then might our military be aptly financed? With foreign economies growing increasingly competitive in recent years, an ominous gauge of our relative economic strength is seen in the flagging number of new listings on U.S. exchanges as compared to those outside the U.S., namely those of London and Hong Kong. This may also have to do with a lingering weariness since 9/11 concerning the future of New York as a financial center, as well as the hysteria over the crashes of Enron and WorldCom and the like that led in 2002 to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act – much too fat a referee for the cracked ice of the late season. Given a terror attack at this juncture, millions of low-wage illegal aliens may need to be conscripted into military service to fill gaps left by an increasingly aged and entitlement receiving population, and so the borders must be left somewhat porous. Of course, we do not have to fight. We can be pushovers and continue putting freedoms on the chopping block, like those of expression and religion, but it will never be enough for dogged terrorists and fools.

The Chairman, fortified in purpose to fight all machinations of freedom’s enemies, has called for a debate:


The Debate will be held on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at the University Club, 420 Summit Avenue, in Saint Paul. The debate will begin at half past seven, following a lecture at six o'clock p.m by Dale Ahlquist of the Chesterton Society. While there is no dress code for attendance, gentlemen who wish to speak must wear a tie; ladies should adhere to a similar sartorial standard. For those gentlemen who arrive tieless yet wish to speak, fret not: the Purveyor of Ties will keep on hand at least one of his quite remarkable ties for just such an eventuality. Questions about debate caucus procedures or about the John Adams Society itself may be directed to the Chairman at 651-222-2782 or the Secretary at 952-486-8059.

Monday, March 12, 2007

No troubles for smokers

You smokers who are up in arms over the proposed smoking ban, chill, dudes. 'Cause the hip and stylin' MN legislature is gonna legalize leaf, weed, you know, man, pot! True, you won't be able to smoke tobacco, but no worries, my bohemian cats, just roll up a groovy doobie instead. Because tobacco's bad for you, but reefer is . . . whoa, dude, just lost my train of thought. Bummer.

Blogger ReTorte said...

Dude! Mary J is a pure product without additives unlike those nasty smelling cigarettes... It's an Organic product Dudette, it HAS to be healthy for ya! Btw, I wonder when the first Mary J Bar is going to open up once it's signed into law..

Of course, the Dems will make sure to add a tax or five to it once it goes through. The part that still puzzles me is that it was Republicans who proposed the legalization! They must be trying to entice the single-issue pot-loving delegation Libertarians to vote for them again..

4:14 PM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

I don't have much of a problem with marijuana legalization. It's hypocrisy that puts a burr in my . . . rather, a fly in my soup.

Yeah, yeah, everything organic is beautiful. For example, organic cocaine should be legal, but use of synthetic cocaine should be up there with treason.

11:29 AM, March 13, 2007  

Post a Comment

Friday, March 09, 2007

DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional

Drudge links to the ruling here and a different summary is available here. The crucial two aspects of this ruling by the DC Circuit Court 1) upholds that the Second Amendment addresses individuals rights regarding guns, and 2) asserts that the Second Amendment does apply to the District of Columbia. This is a very, very big breakthrough.

Would it be a good thing for this case to move up to the Supreme Court? How would the current Court rule?

Blogger Air Marshall said...

Would be better I think if it were brought to the court and they refused to hear it letting the lower court ruling stand.

9:45 PM, March 09, 2007  

Post a Comment

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Us vs. Gore

Debra Saunders discusses Gore in a delightful article here.

I always thought I wasted a lot of energy in my house. We have TVs running all the time, computers left on all day, space heaters in the basement and lights that don't seem to get turned off. It's a constant battle. We use about 2000 Kwh per month or 25,000 Kwh a year for a 4400 sq foot house (including the basement). Gore uses 220,000 Kwh a year for a 12,000 square foot house - or 9 times the energy usage for less than three times the space.

Gore must have a lot of TVs.

Feel free to post your own Kwh usage here and compare it to Uncle Al.

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Interesting challenge. In my last electric billing period, my 2k sq ft house slurped up 320.9 kwh. Of course, I have gas heat, am otherwise cheap, and not a television viewer, though my computer is on 15 hrs/day. In the peak summer months, I may use 50% again the wattage, but likely don't exceed 5000 kwh per year.

I'm not particularly trying to be green, but Gore's not looking any better.

1:46 PM, March 06, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

I don't know any numbers, but I must use a lot every time I ride the elevator up seven storries. I suppose I should take the stairs, bum heart and all. It is the right (or is it left?) thing to do. If I croak half way up it will be on your head Scrib.

10:29 PM, March 07, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Me? ME? What did I do? The only reason I don't leave TVs blaring and lights on all over is to save my own cash, not the earth.

9:00 AM, March 08, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

My house used 28,230 kwh's last year, about the same as saurus, for about a 4200 sq ft house, including basement.
Like saurus, about 1/9th of Al's usage in just that one house. (I think he has three).

Possibly Al has electric heat, but that shouldn't make that much difference.

4:11 PM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

Nope, can't be that he uses electricity for stuff we use gas for. Al's gas bill is over $1000 per month as well.

4:14 PM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

How do you guys use so much more electricity than I do? Half the house shouldn't buy me much more than half the electric bill, all else being equal. Per sq ft, you're using over twice the electricity. Does the television really suck up that much juice?

4:58 PM, March 09, 2007  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...


Check your bill again. At 5000 kwh per year, you are using less than half the national average of 10,600. Do you have a fridge? (The big users of electricity are lights, fridges and freezers, electric heat, air conditioning and electric clothes dryers. We have some electric heat and all of these others.)

8:21 PM, March 10, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Okay, it was 423 kWh for 29 days, 5,324 per year, or around 6,000 if I use 50% more in summer months. Lights are 1/2 fluorescents; newer, efficient fridge; drier, water heater and heat all gas. So it may not just be the televisions. Still doesn't explain Al Gore.

10:25 PM, March 10, 2007  

Post a Comment

Friday, March 02, 2007

Majority of Americans are Socialist

CBSnews.com reports

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance . . .

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor expanding government programs in order to give health insurance to all uninsured children.

At the same time,

Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

Is this discrepancy (and the entire matter that people are looking to government to save them in the first place) the result of that shining example of government monopoly, public education?

I credit my fellow bloggers for thinking we can elect this guy or that guy to solve the overwhelming problem of public stupidity, but you're far too optimistic. You may think this Greenland idea is a joke, but I don't think I can live in this country any longer. If I do, I'm going to have to sequester myself from all news and my surrounding citizens themselves. Now you must excuse me. I'm feeling rather ill.

Blogger Air Marshall said...

Come now Scrib, these are percentages of Americans who responded to a "CBS" poll. You are going to take these numbers as meaninful? Do they tell you how many of their pollsters were told to take a flying leap when they called people? How were the pollee's determined and selected? What percentage are East Coast Democrats? Did they poll Hillary? Kerry? Kennedy? They sure didn't poll me or any of my shooting friends, I can tell that from the responses without asking them. Take some heart, you don't have to leave for Greenland quite yet.

12:07 AM, March 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems to me that we've entered a dangerous era in American politics when "entertainment" polls like this are given credence and even used in support of public policy positions by politicians supposedly elected to think.

Biggest problem I see, and even bigger than most pollsters and pundits wish to acknowledge, is that EVERYTHING depends on how you ask the question. In this case, for example, if you ask "do you think everybody should have health care?" You will get a very large positive response. If you asked the question as, "do you think the federal government should be in charge of your health care?" You might get an altogether different response.

Conservatives need to learn to tie nice-sounding liberal ideas to their harsh, real-world consequences.

J. Ewing

10:02 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Don't fool yourself, AM. You can sense it too. The America into which we were born is gone. Now we are talking about the likes of Giuliani or government-health-care-promoter Romney as Republican candidates. Either the conservative voter gets sucked further leftward or is left to grasp at the libertarian straw. You may view the '08 votes cast for the libertarian candidate as the sum total of non-socialists left in America. Or you may look right now to the level of support for Ron Paul over Giuliani. What saith you?

Our respective handsful of self-selected friends are clearly not indicative of the vast and rapidly changing land of peasants. I'm finding there are very few people I want to associate with anymore, mostly due to intellectual passivity, lack of initiative and curiosity, and inability to think coherently about what is going on in our nation and the world, by choice or by direction. Am I becoming carmudgeonly? Or is the public education system finally yielding its fruit?

10:06 AM, March 03, 2007  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Sounds like someone puked in your Cheerios Scrib. Much of what you say is true, and certainly the America I was born into is long gone (dead really), but Anon is right about polls and the way you word them, and the population group you select. I would not panic quite yet. I don't know how Ron Paul stands vis the other candidates, and am not going to make predictions on who the Republican candidtate will be. I am not very good at picking the winners. I backed Phil Gramm in 96.

2:26 PM, March 04, 2007  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Yes, I was Gramm also in '96 and Forbes in '00. And I can say "I told you so" both times. I was not meant to live in these times. Guess I'll do what I can and try to twist those arms I can reach. But I took off the rosy glasses some years back.

I'm inclined to think the reason we are where we are is because those people who can think for themselves can't stomach what is going on. We're left with the sheeple determining our future.

3:15 PM, March 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Is Gore Finished?

Every politican is accused and probably guilty of hypocricy. The global warming protesters are especially guilty. Usually people over look this stuff. It's just another gotcha point, or just another argument that we forget as time goes by. However, Gore's hypocricy is especially egregious and especially on point. It is very analagous to the secret sexual escapades of a preacher known to preach morality from the pulpit.

Will Gore survive this one? If someone wants a global warming advocate to speak at their event or to represent them, will Gore still be their first choice? Will he be their second choice? Won't Gore's 12,000 square foot electricty munching monster be on the minds of everyone in the audience as he is telling them to fight for the cause to stop global warming. Will Gore's 3rd or fourth home be on the minds of those reading his books or watching his movie.

For the global warming critics, Gore's example will become the most often cited example of how ridiculous the movement is.

I think Gore is finished unless he takes pains to change his ways in a big way, such as moving into an apartment and flying commerical. I have a feeling that even Gore may not be willing to do this. In the end he will only have his new Hollywood buddies left to hang out with. They are all in the same boat together.

Blogger King Oliver said...

Sloanasaurus (who is he really) is too optimistic about the effect of Gore's environmental hypocrisy. The great success of the global warming scam has not been hindered by the facts and theoretical criticism relevant of the matter itself, so why should a minor flaw in the messenger itself--which is not a flaw at all to those who yearn to be ground under the heel of a leftist aristocracy--have any effect whatsoever? Any loss of momentum to the movement will have to come from more scientists, economists, and politicians speaking in defense of reason, as some have and more hopefully will. That will sway those who are willing to be swayed. The others will go on repeating (in the midst of blizzards) that scientists all agree that the planet is warming dangerously because of human-caused increases of CO2.

5:12 PM, March 01, 2007  
Blogger King Oliver said...

Following on the earlier comments regarding the claimed effects of global warming, a complete list is posted on number watch at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

5:34 PM, March 01, 2007  

Post a Comment