Thomas Friedman has written another whopper of a column today.
Just remember, creating a facebook poll about killing the president is bad (and before anyone says otherwise, I do think it is bad and should be investigated) but creating a movie about assassinating George W. Bush is okay.
Posted by MarkGriswold at October 01, 2009 11:15 AM | Email ThisPicture Michelle Obama spending thousands of dollars for a fleet of SUVs, aides and security personnel to ferry her down the street for fancy shoe purchases, etc. while also keeping a straight face and telling us about the importance of everyone reducing their carbon footprint.
And yes, Bush was the target of practically every amazing and over the top hatred and display imaginable. And it was encouraged and looked upon as reasonable dissent. Fast forward a few months, and frustration and far more civil discourse with serious policy issues in the current administration is suddenly labeled racist violence.
And all the while our supposedly neutral press was careful to attack everything Bush and show every picture of every coffin coming back from Iraq, and every roadside bomb that went off. And now, there's mostly just praise for Obama, and very little mention of the negatives, if any. There are a few brave journalists, but they are few. And pictures of coffins or daily breathless reports from foreign lands? That's ancient history, only attributable to Bush.
But it's all going to come back to bite. The biggest sins of the media have been those of omission. But they can't hide the real problems like the continuing rise of unemployment that will eventually be readily apparent to even the most hypnotized MSNBC Progressive droid.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2009 11:50 AMRape and murder isn't rape-rape and murder-murder when a good lefty is doing the raping and murdering.
But if someone not on the left merely thinks a bad thought? Why, they ought to be executed for their crime against humanity.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on October 1, 2009 11:52 AMInteresting.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 12:02 PMFriedman did jump the gun on the Facebook person. It turns out to be a minor. The Secret Service did its proper job in investigating and found that there was not a plot (just really poor judgement). I think Facebook is wise in taking down the tool used. Any "tools" published by Facebook should be reviewed first as to how it can be used and any restrictions it enforces to alleviate mis-use, just like other companies such as Apple and Blackberry do for their "apps." Facebook needs to recognize its role in society and act responsibly, which it appears to have done after the fact.
Friedman's point, however, shouldn't be discounted by the right. Yes, the Bush video is disgusting because it defaces the office and the person. That doesn't mean the pot isn't being stirred. It is good to see people like Lindsay Graham speaking up and calling out the Becks and the fringe groups like the birthers. Too bad the Republican leadership (Boehner, McConnell, and Steele) are not following suit. Just like in the 60's, the Republicans need to discredit their fringe groups. The Democrats also need to discredit their own groups, which they also have.
Posted by: tc on October 1, 2009 12:13 PMhttp://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 12:24 PMWhat else can they say about Bush? That they want him killed?
They already say it.
On Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in ``The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. ``Like Fredo," she said, ``somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: ``John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"
For the more literary Bush-hater, there is ``Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the president. ``I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words ``Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the ``KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tY0lk3YC0Es/SoDw3DyRhzI/AAAAAAAABZE/FgrGEdHNcNs/s400/Bush,+Kill+Stamps.jpg
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 12:49 PM"When I mention that Democrats are problem solvers, I can think of only one Republican who can be a problem solver -- that is Vice President Dick Cheney if he would just take George on a hunting trip," Beshear said. Cheney accidentally shot fellow quail hunter Harry Whittington in Texas in 2006.
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 12:51 PMWant to play a video game in which you get to assassinate George Bush? Well then click this link.
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 12:57 PMOklahoma City Bombing.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 01:10 PMSo what if the movie was made by Europeans? That makes everything okay? It was shown here in America - especially in college towns. (It was playing for a while right in the heart of our own U district.)
I don't recall there being major hand wringing on the part of Katie Couric and the rest of the Obama Cheerleading team when that happened.
Does anyone contest that we certainly have heard a whole lot more righteous indignation over Beck calling Obama a bigot on a cable news show than we ever heard about the Bush assasination movie, which was playing in major cities and promoted in newspapers and radio?
Attempts to say that the movies was made overseas so it doesn't court are as silly as if you were to shoot someone and then claim it didn't count because the gun was made overseas.
Presumably "they" refers to progressives who live in America like me. Am I told be held accountable when some guys in the UK decide to make a movie?
In fact, that movie you imply slid under the blinders got plenty of news coverage. pbj linked to some of that coverage.
I think a poll asking whether to kill Bush is just as wrong as a poll asking whether to kill Obama. Why do is there an effort to feel to victimized when the Bush movie was widely reported and perhaps more so than this silly Facebook poll.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 01:39 PM"Oklahoma City Bombing."
Democrat John Walker Lindh.
When I see movies being made, "mock assassinations" played on air, street plays entitled "I'm gonna kill the president" and Ted Rall cartoon's labelling black members of Obama's cabinet "House N-Word", then I will get concerned.
I am sure you were all warm inside when the liberals were doing all that to Bush. Of course now you will lie and tell us all how you found that offensive - as you get on your bike to attend the latest Moveon.org meeting.
You can't spend 8 years running down this nation, its president and then turn around and demand "respect". All you'll get is contempt.
We are where we are because of crazy liar liberals like you John.
As to your other point: What were Pelosi's exact words that you are referring to? As has been well documented, her words were not that the citizens were Nazi's, but that there were citizens who were bringing Nazi symbols to the town hall protest, which is true and well documented. The other major protest with Pelosi was on the CIA lying to her. This one cannot be proven, or disproven, except for the specific parties involved. We (as the public) don't know what was said or not said. On this one, I do think Pelosi should retract her comment. So, are there some other words you are referring to instead? If so, I can address whether they should be taken back.
As far as Reid, I am not sure what statement you may be referring to. I can't recall at this moment what thing Reid has said that has caused big controversy. You will have to refresh me on this one as to what you may be referring to.
You will notice in my post that I do call out both sides at needing to set their houses in order. I also praise Lindsey Graham for his recent comments to that effect regarding the Republican's own house.
Posted by: tc on October 1, 2009 03:14 PMYou have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 03:16 PM"You have no idea what you're talking about."
Says the man who accuses people of not mentioning a specific climate model when the Mann model had already been mentioned. John, you're record is pretty bad in the "knowing what your talking about" department.
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 04:32 PMSince you want to argue about climate change again: I asked repeatedly for a climate model that differed from last ten years. No one has provided it. The Mann model covered the proceeding 1,000 years, not the last ten years which Gary made a ridiculous claim about. But I can see how you could confuse the last 10 years from the 1,000 years before that because the timelines do not overlap at all and they are two orders of magnitude different from each other. Hey, what's a 100% margin of error between friends?
Posted by: John Jensen on October 1, 2009 05:34 PMIt's very difficult to defend the indefensible, but that hasn't stopped you before.
Posted by: KDS on October 1, 2009 09:01 PMOnce again you begin with a lie. I never claimed to be an expert on climate science. Prove it liar.
However, my educational background includes an advanced degree in computer science with minors in mathematics and physics, so I would feel comfortable stating I am more familiar with the scientific method than say a communications major.
In fact the Mann model doesn't account for history at all. And that isn't me saying so, it is Dr William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He is known for his uncanny accuracy in hurricane forcasting.
one of the biggest issues Dr. Gray sees is with the computer modeling used by Dr. Hansen and other AGW advocates. The computer models show a situation where the accumulating carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere will continue to warm our planet, possibly to the point of being irreversible in the foreseeable future. However, if the data being used or the assumptions being made are faulty, the conclusions in the end will be wrong and that is what Dr. Gray sees. To put it in its simplest terms, computer models are fine but the saying, "garbage in, garbage out" certainly applies to these as well as any other computer model.
The problem with the Global Climate Model's (GCM) is that while they forecast these increases in CO2 and temperature, when they are fed historical data they are unable to replicate the warming that has already occurred. Further, they have not been able to even accurately forecast short term climate of a year or two. If these models cannot even see what has already happened or on a short term, how accurate can they be at predicting the long term future? Dr. Gray believes that Hansen's models use invalid water vapor assumptions, do not accurately reflect the effect of rainfall, and fails to properly take into account ocean circulation. In essence, the garbage in, garbage out system.
So which is it Mr Jensen? Are climate models you choose to consider valid showing warming in the immediate future or not? Please tell us which models show this.
Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2009 11:34 PMthey just want the authentic certificate of his birth.....bama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya...
that is not an outlandish request....
oh, I forgot..."Factcheck.org" had the birth certificate right?...NOT!....remember folks, Factcheck is run by the Annenberg foundation....oh, and who worked for the Annenberg foundation?...bama...
to the subject at hand, no one should ever be surprised by the leftist democrats....they know no shame, no morals, no ethics and are EVIL...all of them...
Posted by: lee on October 2, 2009 04:22 AMI'd say he's an empty suit but it's clear this emperor has no clothes at all.
The eurotrash may have hated W, but at least they were afraid of him. This clown is just, well, a clown.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on October 2, 2009 08:36 AMIf your intent is to incite, then congratulations. Else make your argument for "they" beyond hiding behind the caveat "...I do think it is bad..."
@23 pudge on October 1, 2009 06:58 PM,
How about if we simply stick to facts in any murder case? Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge nobody tried to assassinate President Bush, so the analogy is pointless.
If you wanted to make analogies of which 'wing' would be accused of complicity in an assassination attempt, look to the Sept 12 1994 Corder episode and the September 1975 attempts on Ford, 1981 attempt on Reagan....
Attempting to equivocate, mitigate or in any way explain or justify a polemical argument for a change in elected representative/executive via any means other than elections or constitutionally prescribed removal procedures is an abuse of the privilege of free speech - no matter the party, philosophy or race of the offender.
"Too many Republicans are unwilling to speak out against the ranters, because, I think, they are trying to maximize political gain from the ranters' passion. Where are the conservative media figures calling talk radio and TV ranters to accountability? I keep going on about Glenn Beck, but there are consequences from leading people to believe that their president is a Manchurian candidate who is trying to overturn the Constitution. You keep telling people that, and telling them that everybody around the president is evil incarnate, and you should not be surprised that more than a few people in this country work themselves into a state in which they're prepared to take radical action to "save" America. You know exactly what I'm talking about."
This is a laughable comment. I have an "advanced" degree in computer science with a minor in mathematics. I was one class away from a minor in physics but took an internship instead. I guess that means I'm really smart too.
For the rest of your entirely unrelated-to-my-comment post: read what I wrote. Gary made a claim about the last ten years. Then pointed to the Mann model which doesn't reflect that time period at all. You should to understand what the disagreement is before you start degree-dropping like a fool.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 2, 2009 05:10 PMYou completely ignored my quesiton because you KNOW it backs you into a corner you cannot escape.
We are told by the AGW alarmists that we must do something NOW, right NOW IMEDIATELY or the earth is DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED.
I am simply asking what is the basis for this hysteria? You are apparently denying there is any AGW model out there that can support such an urgent radical change that is supposedly required by the AGW alarmists.
"This is a laughable comment. I have an "advanced" degree in computer science with a minor in mathematics. I was one class away from a minor in physics but took an internship instead. I guess that means I'm really smart too."
Then you certainly should ask for better evidence than the Mann model. Shame on you. You KNOW better.
Posted by: pbj on October 2, 2009 07:30 PMMann model. Mann model. Mann model.
Mann model.
Mann model. Mann model. Mann model.
---
Get over the Mann model. I never brought it up, someone else did. They thought it talked about the last ten years. It didn't. They were wrong.
There is much more evidence: such as the scientific consensus I've previously documented as well as the IPCC model which merged 20+ accepted models on climate change.
You're arguing building straw man to burn them. I am not arguing that global warming is a short-term IMMEDIATE OMG crisis. Who here has said that? No one. It's a long-term crisis that could have very dire consequences. That is not an argument to ignore it, it's an argument to do something now so the eventual costs are lower.
pbj, I am not a full-time climate scientist and I do not research specific climate models. Neither do you, in any depth (MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL MANN MODEL).
It's a petty and childish argument to say that I must personally evaluate a climate model and determine its accuracy. The research I've done is clear to me: there is an absolute scientific consensus that climate change is real and man-made. It's also clear to me that climate change could lead to significant economic and environmental consequences.
I do not need to devise a model to predict the exact temperature for September 21st, 2085 to understand the scientific consensus.
I wonder if your reply will mention the Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model Mann model.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 7, 2009 03:08 PM