→ Politics
ACORNorama
| Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:14 AM PST
Ed Kilgore on ACORN mania among conservatives:
Regular readers of this site know the narrative by now: engorged with federal grants, ACORN engineered the housing and financial crises by intimidating lenders into offering mortgages to poor and minority families with no means or intentions of making their payments, and then when the chickens came home to roost, gambled everything on an illegal effort to secure bailouts and a general "socialist" takeover of the country by stealing the White House for its long-time associate and radical community organizer, Barack Obama.
....Any narrative this powerful has to be fed continuously, which is why the recent congressional vote stripping ACORN of nearly all access to federal grants was a pyrrhic victory for conservatives. How could they keep fear of ACORN alive?
That necessity led to yesterday's strange event in the U.S. House, a partisan "forum" on ACORN that was sort of a parody of a congressional hearing, based on the circular reasoning that the refusal of the House itself to launch an wide-ranging investigation of ACORN was proof of the conspiracy's power.
You can read Dave Weigel's detailed account of the "forum" by following the link above, but the main claim yesterday (specifically by Rep. Darrell Issa of CA) was that the White House serves as a "war room" for ACORN, as "proved" by Obama's tangential relationship with ACORN years ago in Chicago, and more recently, by the hiring of Democratic election law wizard Bob Bauer as White House Counsel. Bauer's smoking gun, it seems, is that he once wrote a memo dismissing broad-based GOP election fraud claims, and warning (accurately) that they would be retailed by the McCain-Palin campaign. Anyone denying the conspiracy, you see, is obviously a party to it.
In the same way that ClimateGate, though relatively trivial from the standpoint of science, is helping keep the faith among climate deniers, the ACORN videotapes, which have nothing to do with voter registration, are keeping the faith among the election fraud conspiracy theorists. It would be loads of fun to watch if only it were happening in someone else's country.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Climategate is far from
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:39 AM PST.
Climategate is far from trivial from the standpoint of science. If you would stop from fellating your cats and read up on it, you'd find Judith Curry, in favor of AGW coming out strongly against ClimateGate and discussing how students, grad students, and associate professors are thinking of getting another career over climategate. There are many other main stream scientists appalled with the behavior of Phil Jones and discussing how his actions were unethical and a perversion of science.
And Michael Mann has now tossed Jones under the bus as well.
But I guess pseudo-liberal talking points and cat penis tastes better to you than the truth.
I guess poor Anonymous just
Submitted by g. powell on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:57 AM PST.
I guess poor Anonymous just needed an excuse to write "cat penis" on the Internet. Probably wasn't as satisfying as he/she thought it would be.
A useful exercise, g, would
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:16 AM PST.
A useful exercise, g, would be for you to read Feynman's essay on Cargo Cult Science and read what he says constitutes scientific integrity, and then compare it to what Phil Jones wrote in his emails, "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Then read Judith Curry and the other link as well.
Scientists in many many fields should be and are appalled at what's in the emails.
It has very little to do with Kevin's boys will be boys dismissal and a great deal more to do with a total failure of scientific integrity.
Nice fluffing there, anon.
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:36 AM PST.
Nice fluffing there, anon. Dr. Curry tries treating you loons like adults, and this is how you thank her, by spinning her words and intent.
Instead of your vague
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:40 AM PST.
Instead of your vague insinuations, why not be specific?
be specific
Submitted by tpx on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:44 AM PST.
You are a felcher, who swallows coal company eliminations.
Hey dude, after your spirited
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 11:03 AM PST.
Hey dude, after your spirited defense of the Taliban yesterday and the destruction of the culture and their oppression of women and put down of civil rights, you make my hypothetical felching of coal from the buttholes of the coal companies seem like a real positive moral choice.
defense of indigenous self-determination is no crime
Submitted by tpx on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 2:51 PM PST.
The Taliban had achieved the stated goals of the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan by providing stability, rule of law and the dismantling of opium cultivation. However, it is the unstated goals of the US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan that drives the continued conflict with the legitimate rulers of that poor country; the securing of a right of way for pipelines without paying the Afghan peoples their fair share is never officially mentioned as why the US is still in Afghanistan. (The heroin revenues are never mentioned either.)
Anyone who embraces Enlightenment values cannot condone or approve of the way the Taliban ruled, but they cannot approve or condone the way W. Bush ruled or the occupation of another country that poses no national security threat to it, especially one with no army, navy or air force. The Taliban did enjoy one Enlightenment value however, they ruled with the consent of the people. Those same people are the ones aiding them in the insurgency against the Americans now.
The greed of the energy companies drives the denial of the effects of billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere annually, which dovetails with the denial of Enlightenment values in regards to the cultural destruction and oppression of the Afghan peoples by the American troops.
Hey Bruce, Read this and
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 11:11 AM PST.
Hey Bruce,
Read this and weep: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curr...
The only part I got wrong was that Curry writes to graduate students and young scientists, discussing reactions from students, grad students, and alums. I mistook young scientists for professors.
"An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails.
....
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities.
"
Of course your huge mistake was the illogical fallacy that to be appalled by ClimateGate makes me a conservative, when all it does is suggest I am a scientist and not a hack such as yourself.
>The only part I got wrong
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 6:21 PM PST.
>The only part I got wrong was...
...her entire underlying message. Which was to:
"Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values"
In other words, she has confidence that her field is strong enough to power through the skeptics through openness and dialog. I think she underestimates the depravity of the wingnuttisphere, but good for her.
Whereas your post implied she had joined your side in the muckraking. Not so good.
Here Kevin is another pro-AGW
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:40 AM PST.
Here Kevin is another pro-AGW scientist you won't want to read: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html
Issa more corrupt than ACORN
Submitted by tpx on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:40 AM PST.
Rep. Darrell Issa of CA is one of the wealthiest members of the House, much wealthier, powerful and far more corrupt than ACORN could ever hope to be. Yet Rep. Darrell Issa can use government resources to convene a propaganda witch hunt. The government needs to investigate Rep. Darrell Issa as thoroughly and aggressively as it has investigated ACORN.
AGW?
Submitted by Detroit Dan on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:51 AM PST.
What is AGW? Is it something like creationism?
Ha! You're so busy being
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:56 AM PST.
Ha! You're so busy being clever you turned yourself into a total dipshit.
AGW :== Anthropogenic Global Warming, the theory that Global Warming is muchly man-made.
as opposed to mere Global Warming, which is what the so-called deniers often are saying is the case -- there's global warming but it has little to do with human activities.
So AGW proponents include Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
Good One! You got me!
Submitted by Detroit Dan on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:11 AM PST.
Anthropogenic.
Actually, I didn't know what AGW stands for, so I did learn something...
To be honest, I learned
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:22 AM PST.
To be honest, I learned something too.
When I just google anthropogenic global warming, 99.999% of the hits ARE from right wing, anti-AGW sites. I don't know if that's because AGW is just a propaganda name or just the natural result of climategate temporarily skewing google.
So I can't say with certainty that the IPCC/Phil Jones/Michael Mann/Judith Curry or other scientists involved in the activity call their theory/field AGW, and I would prefer to call it whatever they are calling it.
But my point still stands, there are scientists like Curry who work in the field, who believe in the theory, who think that ClimateGate is very serious stuff relating to scientific integrity.
And if you believe Curry, that's echoed in emails to her from climatology students, grad students, and even professors of climatology who are up in arms about it. That's a far more informed audience than the mob of liberal sites who think a rote and bizarre boys will be boys defense of the CRU is what's needed.
Acorn Hiding Truth About Obama's Kenyan Birth?
Submitted by Detroit Dan on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:54 AM PST.
This looks like the work of Big Buddhism to me...
If ACORN had been a
Submitted by MacGruber on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 9:55 AM PST.
If ACORN had been a conservative or Republican organization, you can bet your bottom dollar Drum and liberal blogs everywhere would be calling for investigations and trials. But ACORN is not. So nothing to see here...
For years liberals wailed about Diebold stealing elections. Enron ruining the economy. Heck, Bush is still the liberals' favorite punching bag and Obama's crutch when trying to explain why things are so bad. [Note to Obama: take ownership of the problems facing your country. I don't think Bush ever said a bad word about Clinton or his policies.]
Then there's Blackwater, who, if you believe liberals, is actually fighting the war in Iraq and making billions while doing so. And good old Halliburton as well, even though public records show Halliburton has a smaller profit margin than most companies. And has lost money on several government contracts.
ACORN, on the other hand, is a saintly organization beyond reproach. Keep on giving them federal funds and allow them to dispense illegal advice. I can only imagine the advice they give to the non-pimps coming into their office. And I'm sure they'd never get involved in any sort of election wrongdoings on behalf of Democrats. They are non-partisan, right?
The more you guys defend ACORN and ClimateGate, the more desperate and ridiculous you sound. The truth is, you don't want anyone to look into ACORN. You don't want anyone to look into CRU, much less question their data and methodology.
But people will and you're getting nervous.
2010 is going to be a great mid-term election.
If ACORN had been a
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:19 AM PST.
If ACORN had been a conservative or Republican organization, you can bet your bottom dollar Drum and liberal blogs everywhere would be calling for investigations and trials. But ACORN is not. So nothing to see here...
Of course MacGruber doesn't see the difference between some deskchair quarterbacks whining about Diebold and Blackwater and FUCKING CONGRESSMEN wasting the country's time making a Federal case out of a few bad apples at Acorn.
Tell you what, Grubby - Count up the number of ACORN members accused of aiding the "pimp" (not calling the cops is not the same thing as aiding. you might know enough about the constitution to know that saying you're a prostitute is not an arrestable offense), then count up the number of Blackwater personnel guilty of killing innocent Iraqis and raping their coworkers and then get back to me.
Friday scatblogging, an early start..
Submitted by SocraticGadlfy (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:02 AM PST.
Scatblogging with chimps for nuts: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/12/friday-scatblogging-with-our....
And, with Indians for mammoths: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/12/friday-scatblogging-mammoths-...
>It would be loads of fun to
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 10:40 AM PST.
>It would be loads of fun to watch if only it were happening in someone else's country.
Errr, normally yes, on these two topics, ACORN makes me feel sick, and the other like the wingnut right wants to drag us back to the era of inquisitions.
Thanks, Anon (the one talking
Submitted by JohnL (not verified) on Fri Dec. 4, 2009 1:15 PM PST.
Thanks, Anon (the one talking about climate change), for showing that Kevin was right when he talked about this on Monday: he said that climate change sceptics would use this to deny climate change is real even though this episode does nothing to change the science because it only involves one piece of evidence-- even if we exclude all data that might might be involved here, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is warming and it's mostly because of human causes.
Thus, he concludes that this is trivial in terms of the argument for climate change. This does not mean he thinks that nothing should be done about these individuals (if they did break FOI rules, for example, they should be punished) or that there aren't problems with transparency or that we shouldn't be sceptical of research done by these people.
