Re: "Witless for the defense," from the January 30th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Did Mr. Ryan not approve of Rick Mckee's cartoon of the previous day's edition of his own editorial page--the one that equated aborted fetuses with babies being buried in a graveyard?
This is the kind of propaganda that conservative pundits have been spewing to egg on crazy nuts like Scott Roeder. To then write criticism of behavior inspired by his own inflammatory rhetoric is incredibly hypocritical. Every time Mr. Ryan writes an editorial about abortion, he illogically exaggerates this medical procedure with the phrase "killing babies." This makes him and other conservative pundits complicit in violent acts against doctors.
He should be ashamed of his radical rhetoric. But it's clear from is editorials that he is a man of little ethical standards.
********
BTW,
Mckee's cartoon was just stupid. Aborted fetuses are never given funerals as he so falsely portrayed. They are disposed as medical waste. An aborted embryo is little more than menstrual slough. To compare an embryo to a live baby is hysteria.
*****
Re: Short-changing the country" from the January 9th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Mr. Ryan refers to Obama's "string of election defeats." Obama won the last election he was in--it was for the presidency. Placing the blame on Obama for the democrats loss in a small handful of local election is ridiculous hyperbole. In his editorial Mr. Ryan also repeats the lie that cap and trade will cripple the economy. Factcheck.org recently debunked this lie.
Mr. Ryan joins conservative pundits in refering to the president as arrogant. As Keith Olbermann rightly notes this is codeword or calling the president an uppity Negro. Having a differing political view does not mke one arrogant. Once again Mr. Ryan is guilty of a baseless criticism of thepresident, and this one smells racist.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tebow Super Bowl Ad Blows a Big Hole in the "Liberal Media" Myth
Re: "Birth Denouncement," from the January 28th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.
A year or two ago the network that had the Super Bowl refused to run an ad from the liberal group, Moveon.org. This year they're allowing an ad from the conservative group, Focus on the Family.
Hey, according to Michael Ryan and all those conservatives out there, I thought the media was supposed to be liberal. This kind of blows a big hole in that theory.
I don't like Focus on the Family, but they have the right to run this silly ad and CBS has the right to show it. It's a silly ad because no one is saying the birth of children isn't a wonderful thing. Everyone knows, however, that conservative groups such as Focus on the Family are hypocrites. They are so against abortion, but once children are born, they support candidates who think poor people's children are the equivalent of stray animals that shouldn't be fed (see my previous blog entry).
Focus on the Family and other conservative Christian groups believe men should be the head of the household and women should be subservient to men. That's exactly what Baptist doctrine teaches--I know, my wife is a member Baptist Church. Of course, I'm agnostic and believe all religions are stupid and archaic.
I can see why women's groups are upset about this.
*********************************************************************************
I listened to Austin Rhodes for about ten minutes two days ago. I wanted to hear some breaking news about a violent shooting involving Richmond County students. As usual, Mr. Rhodes got it all wrong and reported it as gang retaliation between S. Richmond County and Barton Chapel. Nobody involved in the shooting lived anywhere near Barton Chapel. I know where Barton Chapel is...I got mugged there trying to buy pot in 1984.
About ten minutes was all I could stand of his show. After the commercial Mr. Rhodes went on a rant in which he called feminists, "snot-nosed," and then he made reference to Rachel Maddow's lesbian sexual prowess which he admitted probably surpassed his own. What a bore!
This is what goes for conservative intellectual thought (an oxymoron). And to think this obnoxious bore gets good ratings. Doesn't say much for Augusta's intellect either.
A year or two ago the network that had the Super Bowl refused to run an ad from the liberal group, Moveon.org. This year they're allowing an ad from the conservative group, Focus on the Family.
Hey, according to Michael Ryan and all those conservatives out there, I thought the media was supposed to be liberal. This kind of blows a big hole in that theory.
I don't like Focus on the Family, but they have the right to run this silly ad and CBS has the right to show it. It's a silly ad because no one is saying the birth of children isn't a wonderful thing. Everyone knows, however, that conservative groups such as Focus on the Family are hypocrites. They are so against abortion, but once children are born, they support candidates who think poor people's children are the equivalent of stray animals that shouldn't be fed (see my previous blog entry).
Focus on the Family and other conservative Christian groups believe men should be the head of the household and women should be subservient to men. That's exactly what Baptist doctrine teaches--I know, my wife is a member Baptist Church. Of course, I'm agnostic and believe all religions are stupid and archaic.
I can see why women's groups are upset about this.
*********************************************************************************
I listened to Austin Rhodes for about ten minutes two days ago. I wanted to hear some breaking news about a violent shooting involving Richmond County students. As usual, Mr. Rhodes got it all wrong and reported it as gang retaliation between S. Richmond County and Barton Chapel. Nobody involved in the shooting lived anywhere near Barton Chapel. I know where Barton Chapel is...I got mugged there trying to buy pot in 1984.
About ten minutes was all I could stand of his show. After the commercial Mr. Rhodes went on a rant in which he called feminists, "snot-nosed," and then he made reference to Rachel Maddow's lesbian sexual prowess which he admitted probably surpassed his own. What a bore!
This is what goes for conservative intellectual thought (an oxymoron). And to think this obnoxious bore gets good ratings. Doesn't say much for Augusta's intellect either.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In Principle Michael Ryan Agrees--Welfare Recipients=Stray Animals
Re: "Murphy Brown Gives Birth Again," from the January 26th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Michael Ryan writes that S.C. Lt. Governor, Andre Bauer, in principle is right--welfare recipients are the equivalent of stray animals. Mr. Ryan only laments Mr. Bauer's wording of the issue. I don't know how many diplomatic ways there are to say that poor people=stray dogs and cats, but the truth came out and that's what conservatives think of less fortunate human beings.
If there is any issue which clearly demonstrates the lack of logic in conservative thought, this is it. Conservatives falsely believe welfare causes a cycle of dependency. How can this be? There is a 5 year lifetime limit on federal welfare. It's therefore impossible for a woman to live on welfare her entire life as many conservatives believe. Moreover, men without children are not even eligible for federal welfare. There is no evidence that children of welfare mothers are more likely to turn to welfare themselves when they grow up. The mother of Sarah Jessica Parker, the actress from Sex and the City, was on welfare. Yet, her daughter became a successful actress.
What do conservatives think? That poor women get pregnant out of wedlock on purpose so they can collect welfare and food stamps and live in public housing. Those aren't exactly get rich schemes. Conservatives must think poor women say, "Oh yeah, I'm going to get knocked up so I can barely scrape by on welfare."
Conservatives are stooges because they think people want to be poor on purpose so they can live off the government. Nobody wants to be poor.
The reality is this: If you are going to have a free market, capitalist society, there are going to be poor people. You can be humane and have a government that takes care of the have-nots, or you can have armed revolution when poor people get fed up with starvation. I vote for the former and lots of it--we should have greater welfare benefits (including generous job training and education) than we have now.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "A gaping blindspot," from the January 23rd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
This one is laughable. Mr. Ryan claims the media turns a blind eye to the Tea Party movement and the John Edwards' scandal. If so, how do we even know about it. His claim just doesn't make sense. If the media ignored it, as he claims, we wouldn't know about these things.
Re: "Running out of options," from the same edition.
Mr. Ryan is correct when he notes polls show people are overwhelmingly against the health care plan. But I was listening to NPR the other day and the radio announcer cited a poll (I don't know which one) that showed the health care plan with just 40% support compared to 51% opposition. But when people were told what was actually in the plan, support jumped up to 73%.
This demonstrates that much of the opposition to the plan is based on ignorance.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "A seismic correction from the January 21st edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Conservative pundits and panicky democrats are making far too much out of Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts senatorial election. He was a handsome man who looked like a Kennedy, and he ran a clever advertisement comparing himself to J.F.K. He satisfied the Kennedy fetish that Massachusetts voters seem to have. (Remember they re-elected Ted after Chappaquidick, an event that would have wiped out any other politician's career.)
I know this is cynical, and there are many people who do vote based on ideology, but just as many vote on looks and personality, and that's the main reason why Brown won. I can't think of a single good looking candidate who ever lost to a non-incumbent ugly candidate in any race. I know there are some. Maybe somebody can give some examples in response to this blog, but I just can't think of any.
This does hurt the democrats. Though they still have big majorities in both houses of congress, they act as if they're in the minority. What a bunch of wimps. They should simply do away with that silly antiquated filibuster rule, but this would require guts--something democrats have absolutely none of.
************************************************************************************
In the above mentioned edition we have crazy nut of the week letter from Paul Rosenthal who states that Obama wants the economy to fail on purpose so he can install a Marxist system. Someone forgot to give this guy his thorazine.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "Nancy Antoinette," from the January 18th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
It's really galling when conservatives such as Mr. Ryan claim the republicans are the party of the common man. This criticism of Nancy Pelosi is not fair. Congressmen have the right to go on junkets to obtain information about the world. Mr. Ryan criticizes her for not revealing how much her trip cost. She probably doesn't know. Some secretary handles it. Mr. Ryan cites Jack Cafferty who also criticizes Ms. Pelosi for this. Jack Cafferty is a stupid populist ass who wants to get people fired up about nothing.
**********************************************************************************
Note: I again submitted a letter to the Augusta Chronicle. It was about an issue I discussed in my last blog--Mr. Ryan's plagiarism of an article written by Ms. Lopez in which she misquoted Martha Coakley and came up with the dubious conclusion that Ms. Coakley stated catholics were unfit to work in emergency rooms. In my letter I didn't use the word plagiarism. I simply wrote it was an astonishing coincidence that he came up with the same misquote and same dubious conclusion.
Nevertheless, they didn't publish my letter (after 8 days, so I assume they won't). This proves that they're aware of Mr. Ryan's plagiarisms and evidentally approve of them.
Michael Ryan writes that S.C. Lt. Governor, Andre Bauer, in principle is right--welfare recipients are the equivalent of stray animals. Mr. Ryan only laments Mr. Bauer's wording of the issue. I don't know how many diplomatic ways there are to say that poor people=stray dogs and cats, but the truth came out and that's what conservatives think of less fortunate human beings.
If there is any issue which clearly demonstrates the lack of logic in conservative thought, this is it. Conservatives falsely believe welfare causes a cycle of dependency. How can this be? There is a 5 year lifetime limit on federal welfare. It's therefore impossible for a woman to live on welfare her entire life as many conservatives believe. Moreover, men without children are not even eligible for federal welfare. There is no evidence that children of welfare mothers are more likely to turn to welfare themselves when they grow up. The mother of Sarah Jessica Parker, the actress from Sex and the City, was on welfare. Yet, her daughter became a successful actress.
What do conservatives think? That poor women get pregnant out of wedlock on purpose so they can collect welfare and food stamps and live in public housing. Those aren't exactly get rich schemes. Conservatives must think poor women say, "Oh yeah, I'm going to get knocked up so I can barely scrape by on welfare."
Conservatives are stooges because they think people want to be poor on purpose so they can live off the government. Nobody wants to be poor.
The reality is this: If you are going to have a free market, capitalist society, there are going to be poor people. You can be humane and have a government that takes care of the have-nots, or you can have armed revolution when poor people get fed up with starvation. I vote for the former and lots of it--we should have greater welfare benefits (including generous job training and education) than we have now.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "A gaping blindspot," from the January 23rd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
This one is laughable. Mr. Ryan claims the media turns a blind eye to the Tea Party movement and the John Edwards' scandal. If so, how do we even know about it. His claim just doesn't make sense. If the media ignored it, as he claims, we wouldn't know about these things.
Re: "Running out of options," from the same edition.
Mr. Ryan is correct when he notes polls show people are overwhelmingly against the health care plan. But I was listening to NPR the other day and the radio announcer cited a poll (I don't know which one) that showed the health care plan with just 40% support compared to 51% opposition. But when people were told what was actually in the plan, support jumped up to 73%.
This demonstrates that much of the opposition to the plan is based on ignorance.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "A seismic correction from the January 21st edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Conservative pundits and panicky democrats are making far too much out of Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts senatorial election. He was a handsome man who looked like a Kennedy, and he ran a clever advertisement comparing himself to J.F.K. He satisfied the Kennedy fetish that Massachusetts voters seem to have. (Remember they re-elected Ted after Chappaquidick, an event that would have wiped out any other politician's career.)
I know this is cynical, and there are many people who do vote based on ideology, but just as many vote on looks and personality, and that's the main reason why Brown won. I can't think of a single good looking candidate who ever lost to a non-incumbent ugly candidate in any race. I know there are some. Maybe somebody can give some examples in response to this blog, but I just can't think of any.
This does hurt the democrats. Though they still have big majorities in both houses of congress, they act as if they're in the minority. What a bunch of wimps. They should simply do away with that silly antiquated filibuster rule, but this would require guts--something democrats have absolutely none of.
************************************************************************************
In the above mentioned edition we have crazy nut of the week letter from Paul Rosenthal who states that Obama wants the economy to fail on purpose so he can install a Marxist system. Someone forgot to give this guy his thorazine.
***********************************************************************************
Re: "Nancy Antoinette," from the January 18th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
It's really galling when conservatives such as Mr. Ryan claim the republicans are the party of the common man. This criticism of Nancy Pelosi is not fair. Congressmen have the right to go on junkets to obtain information about the world. Mr. Ryan criticizes her for not revealing how much her trip cost. She probably doesn't know. Some secretary handles it. Mr. Ryan cites Jack Cafferty who also criticizes Ms. Pelosi for this. Jack Cafferty is a stupid populist ass who wants to get people fired up about nothing.
**********************************************************************************
Note: I again submitted a letter to the Augusta Chronicle. It was about an issue I discussed in my last blog--Mr. Ryan's plagiarism of an article written by Ms. Lopez in which she misquoted Martha Coakley and came up with the dubious conclusion that Ms. Coakley stated catholics were unfit to work in emergency rooms. In my letter I didn't use the word plagiarism. I simply wrote it was an astonishing coincidence that he came up with the same misquote and same dubious conclusion.
Nevertheless, they didn't publish my letter (after 8 days, so I assume they won't). This proves that they're aware of Mr. Ryan's plagiarisms and evidentally approve of them.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
More Plagiarism from Michael Ryan
Re: "Then the race got kookier," from the January 16th addition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
We can add Kathryn Lopez, a columnist for the National Review, as another source that Michael Ryan plagiarizes.
Ms. Lopez deliberately misquoted Massachusetts senatorial candidate, Martha Coakley, to make it sound as if she was prejudiced against catholics.
Ms. Coakley was being interviewed by radio host, Ken Pittman. They were discussing a Massachusetts state law that provides emergency contraception for rape victims in emergency rooms. Because catholics are against birth control of any kind, this could pose a moral dilemma for them. Martha Coakley's opponent, Scott Brown, sponsored an amendment to this law that would have the state pay for transfers to hospitals where medical workers who don't oppose birth control would provide the treatment.
Ms. Lopez misquoted what Ms. Coakley said when discussing this issue. She wrote that Ms. Coakley said "The law says people are allowed to have that (referring to religious freedom). You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room." Then she made the leap that Ms. Coakley claimed that catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms.
This is the part Ms. Lopez left out, according to Jamison Foser (www.mediamatters.org/blog/201001150015), "If you refuse to provide legal medical services to rape victims, you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room."
In Michael Ryan's column, he repeated the same misquotation and also claimed, as Ms. Lopez did, that Ms. Coakley saw catholics as unqualified to work in emergency rooms.
So unless, Mr. Ryan independently thought to deliberately misquote Ms. Coakley and to use the misquotation to smear her with being anti-catholic, than he is guilty of plagiarism.
Anybody out there think he thought of this smear independently?
***********************************************************************************
Today's editorial, "Obama's freshmen failure," was predictably unfair.
I think it's too early for history to judge whether Obama's first year was a failure or a success, and the whole idea of giving a letter grade to a president is a little silly. Nevertheless, most of the criticisms in this editorial are rehashed accounts of Mr. Ryan's hysterical opposition to political points of view he disagrees with.
I'm not going to discuss each and every one. Instead, I'd like to point out the most unfair criticism in this column. Mr. Ryan writes, "he (Obama) has failed to pass any major legislation, amazingly despite solid Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress."
There are two reasons for this and they have nothing to do with Obama.
1. Republican obstructionism
2. Conservative democrats who are also on the take from big corporations and oppose even minor reforms.
Considering the control big corporations have over Congress, it's amazing an reform beneficial to the people ever passes, but it looks likely at least some form of weak health care reform will pass soon.
We can add Kathryn Lopez, a columnist for the National Review, as another source that Michael Ryan plagiarizes.
Ms. Lopez deliberately misquoted Massachusetts senatorial candidate, Martha Coakley, to make it sound as if she was prejudiced against catholics.
Ms. Coakley was being interviewed by radio host, Ken Pittman. They were discussing a Massachusetts state law that provides emergency contraception for rape victims in emergency rooms. Because catholics are against birth control of any kind, this could pose a moral dilemma for them. Martha Coakley's opponent, Scott Brown, sponsored an amendment to this law that would have the state pay for transfers to hospitals where medical workers who don't oppose birth control would provide the treatment.
Ms. Lopez misquoted what Ms. Coakley said when discussing this issue. She wrote that Ms. Coakley said "The law says people are allowed to have that (referring to religious freedom). You can have religious freedom, but you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room." Then she made the leap that Ms. Coakley claimed that catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms.
This is the part Ms. Lopez left out, according to Jamison Foser (www.mediamatters.org/blog/201001150015), "If you refuse to provide legal medical services to rape victims, you probably shouldn't work in an emergency room."
In Michael Ryan's column, he repeated the same misquotation and also claimed, as Ms. Lopez did, that Ms. Coakley saw catholics as unqualified to work in emergency rooms.
So unless, Mr. Ryan independently thought to deliberately misquote Ms. Coakley and to use the misquotation to smear her with being anti-catholic, than he is guilty of plagiarism.
Anybody out there think he thought of this smear independently?
***********************************************************************************
Today's editorial, "Obama's freshmen failure," was predictably unfair.
I think it's too early for history to judge whether Obama's first year was a failure or a success, and the whole idea of giving a letter grade to a president is a little silly. Nevertheless, most of the criticisms in this editorial are rehashed accounts of Mr. Ryan's hysterical opposition to political points of view he disagrees with.
I'm not going to discuss each and every one. Instead, I'd like to point out the most unfair criticism in this column. Mr. Ryan writes, "he (Obama) has failed to pass any major legislation, amazingly despite solid Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress."
There are two reasons for this and they have nothing to do with Obama.
1. Republican obstructionism
2. Conservative democrats who are also on the take from big corporations and oppose even minor reforms.
Considering the control big corporations have over Congress, it's amazing an reform beneficial to the people ever passes, but it looks likely at least some form of weak health care reform will pass soon.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Rick Mckee Draws another Ridiculous Cartoon
On January 13th a political cartoon drawn by Rick Mckee comparing Harry Reid to a member of the KKK appeared on the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Comparing Harry Reid to a member of the KKK is just ridiculous. I addressed this stupid controversy in my last blog entry, but in the last few days I've learned more information that makes the comparison between Harry Reid's comments and Trent Lott's even more absurd. According to the hot political gossip book, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, it was Harry Reid who encouraged President Obama to take on the Clintons. If it wasn't for Senator Reid, there would be no Barrack Obama presidency. And obviously, if Senator Reid was in any way comparable to the KKK, he wouldn't encourage an African-American to run for the presidency. Rick McKee is a moron.
*************************************************************************************
Also on this date, the Augusta Chronicle ran a really ignorant editorial written by Walter Williams, who I always jokingly refer to as Rush Limbaugh doing a minstral show. In the column, "Global Warming is a religion," Mr. Williams wrote two obvious lies and made three points that reveal a stunning ignorance of basic science.
Mr. Williams claimed that some scientists "fraudulently manipulated data and engaged in criminal activity revealed in what has been called 'Climate gate.'" Not only is this a lie, but it is a libelous lie. No scientist has been criminally charged in this case. www.factcheck.org posted an article explaining that they didn't fraudulently manipulate data either.
The other lie in this column was Mr. Williams' bizarre claim that CO2 is not correlated with temperature. Temperatures are without a doubt tied to CO2 levels. See www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-temperature-correlation.htm for a good layman's explanation.
Then he listed several points that supposedly debunk the alarmism over rising CO2 levels. These points only reveal how ignorant he is of science. He wrote that humans contribute 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels while nature contributes 96.6 %. Nobody is disputing that. What scientists say is that this unnatural addition of CO2 may tip the scales and upset the natural balance in detrimental ways.
Mr. Williams wrote that the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago occurred when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. Yeah, and humans could not have survived in that atmosphere. All life forms during this time period were aquatic.
And he wrote that when dinosaurs roamed the earth, CO2 levels were 9 times higher than today. Yeah, and earth was a miserable hot place to live where temperatures seldom fell below 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and there were no seasons. Oceans covered 85% of earth's surface during this time period because there were no polar ice caps.
Mr. Williams was so ignorant about science, he didn't even realize his facts were actually contrary to the point he was trying to make. I emailed him and informed him of his ignorance. His response was one word--"Amen." I'm sure that was a pre-planned response to expected criticism of his column, implying that anyone disagreeing with him was worshipping at an altar of global warming. Nevertheless, his column proved him an ignoramous.
***********************************************************************************
On January 14th Lee Benedict regaled us with yet another one of his incoherent, right wing rants in his letter, "Actions show where Obama's heart lies." In this letter it seems evident that Mr. Benedict doesn't know what a Zionist is. He also told a whopper of a lie when he said President Obama goes mum when terrorists attack the U.S. I'm not even going to look up a source to debunk this falsehood. Anybody who follows the news knows this is not true. Why would Michael Ryan run something this blatantly false? He won't run my letters accurately documenting his plagiarism because supposedly "they can't verify the accuracy of the content," but he will run ridiculous lies such as this.
************************************************************************************
Re: "Huge test of Democratic rule," from the January 16th addition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Conservatives are making a lot of hay about the senatorial election in Massachusetts. Mr. Ryan claims the republican candidate is within striking distance. Actually, that's only according to one poll. All other polls have the democratic candidate safely ahead. The Boston Globe has her 18 points ahead. In any case voter turnout is much lower in off year, special elections. So I believe conservatives are making too much over the so-claimed closeness of this race. We'll see on Tuesday. I predict Coakley wins handily, even considering the low turnout which always hurts democrats.
Mr. Ryan took issue with one statement she made. Ms. Coakley said there were no terrorists left in Afghanistan. Mr. Ryan considered this a large gaffe. Actually, Ms. Coakley is correct. Al Qaida has been routed in Afghanistan, and there are few terrorists left there. The U.S. is fighting the taliban, and they're not the same entity as the terrorists our troops were originally sent there to fight. So what she said was not at all outrageous as Mr. Ryan falsely claims.
Comparing Harry Reid to a member of the KKK is just ridiculous. I addressed this stupid controversy in my last blog entry, but in the last few days I've learned more information that makes the comparison between Harry Reid's comments and Trent Lott's even more absurd. According to the hot political gossip book, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, it was Harry Reid who encouraged President Obama to take on the Clintons. If it wasn't for Senator Reid, there would be no Barrack Obama presidency. And obviously, if Senator Reid was in any way comparable to the KKK, he wouldn't encourage an African-American to run for the presidency. Rick McKee is a moron.
*************************************************************************************
Also on this date, the Augusta Chronicle ran a really ignorant editorial written by Walter Williams, who I always jokingly refer to as Rush Limbaugh doing a minstral show. In the column, "Global Warming is a religion," Mr. Williams wrote two obvious lies and made three points that reveal a stunning ignorance of basic science.
Mr. Williams claimed that some scientists "fraudulently manipulated data and engaged in criminal activity revealed in what has been called 'Climate gate.'" Not only is this a lie, but it is a libelous lie. No scientist has been criminally charged in this case. www.factcheck.org posted an article explaining that they didn't fraudulently manipulate data either.
The other lie in this column was Mr. Williams' bizarre claim that CO2 is not correlated with temperature. Temperatures are without a doubt tied to CO2 levels. See www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-temperature-correlation.htm for a good layman's explanation.
Then he listed several points that supposedly debunk the alarmism over rising CO2 levels. These points only reveal how ignorant he is of science. He wrote that humans contribute 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels while nature contributes 96.6 %. Nobody is disputing that. What scientists say is that this unnatural addition of CO2 may tip the scales and upset the natural balance in detrimental ways.
Mr. Williams wrote that the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago occurred when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. Yeah, and humans could not have survived in that atmosphere. All life forms during this time period were aquatic.
And he wrote that when dinosaurs roamed the earth, CO2 levels were 9 times higher than today. Yeah, and earth was a miserable hot place to live where temperatures seldom fell below 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and there were no seasons. Oceans covered 85% of earth's surface during this time period because there were no polar ice caps.
Mr. Williams was so ignorant about science, he didn't even realize his facts were actually contrary to the point he was trying to make. I emailed him and informed him of his ignorance. His response was one word--"Amen." I'm sure that was a pre-planned response to expected criticism of his column, implying that anyone disagreeing with him was worshipping at an altar of global warming. Nevertheless, his column proved him an ignoramous.
***********************************************************************************
On January 14th Lee Benedict regaled us with yet another one of his incoherent, right wing rants in his letter, "Actions show where Obama's heart lies." In this letter it seems evident that Mr. Benedict doesn't know what a Zionist is. He also told a whopper of a lie when he said President Obama goes mum when terrorists attack the U.S. I'm not even going to look up a source to debunk this falsehood. Anybody who follows the news knows this is not true. Why would Michael Ryan run something this blatantly false? He won't run my letters accurately documenting his plagiarism because supposedly "they can't verify the accuracy of the content," but he will run ridiculous lies such as this.
************************************************************************************
Re: "Huge test of Democratic rule," from the January 16th addition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Conservatives are making a lot of hay about the senatorial election in Massachusetts. Mr. Ryan claims the republican candidate is within striking distance. Actually, that's only according to one poll. All other polls have the democratic candidate safely ahead. The Boston Globe has her 18 points ahead. In any case voter turnout is much lower in off year, special elections. So I believe conservatives are making too much over the so-claimed closeness of this race. We'll see on Tuesday. I predict Coakley wins handily, even considering the low turnout which always hurts democrats.
Mr. Ryan took issue with one statement she made. Ms. Coakley said there were no terrorists left in Afghanistan. Mr. Ryan considered this a large gaffe. Actually, Ms. Coakley is correct. Al Qaida has been routed in Afghanistan, and there are few terrorists left there. The U.S. is fighting the taliban, and they're not the same entity as the terrorists our troops were originally sent there to fight. So what she said was not at all outrageous as Mr. Ryan falsely claims.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Michael Ryan Jumps on the Bandwagon of Conservative Stupidity
Re: "Hypocrisy over Harry," from the January 12th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
It seems as if Mr. Ryan has to regurgitate every conservative criticism of the democrats and the media no matter how stupid it is.
The latest charge is that democrats are hypocrites because they demanded Trent Lott be censured following his musing that we would be better off if we had elected a segregationist president, but are not censuring Harry Reid's goofy but honest statements about race.
The comparison is ridiculous. Trent Lott expressed support for segregation. Harry Reid merely said some things about race that are true but a little insulting. At worst, they were undiplomatic. But at least he was expressing enthusiasm for electing a black president. Trent Lott was saying we should have kept Jim Crow institutions.
That's a gigantic difference. Anyone who can't see the difference is either just obtuse or wants to make stuff up as an excuse to generate artificial controversy.
It seems as if Mr. Ryan has to regurgitate every conservative criticism of the democrats and the media no matter how stupid it is.
The latest charge is that democrats are hypocrites because they demanded Trent Lott be censured following his musing that we would be better off if we had elected a segregationist president, but are not censuring Harry Reid's goofy but honest statements about race.
The comparison is ridiculous. Trent Lott expressed support for segregation. Harry Reid merely said some things about race that are true but a little insulting. At worst, they were undiplomatic. But at least he was expressing enthusiasm for electing a black president. Trent Lott was saying we should have kept Jim Crow institutions.
That's a gigantic difference. Anyone who can't see the difference is either just obtuse or wants to make stuff up as an excuse to generate artificial controversy.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Michael Ryan makes an Impractical Suggestion
Re: "Talk is cheap: lives are not," from the January 10th edition of the Augusta Chronicle."
This column is more evidence Mr. Ryan doesn't read his own newspaper because he makes a ridiculous, impractical suggestion. He states his outrage that every passenger on an airline is going to be scanned and writes, "Rather than assume everyone (sic) a terrorist , why don't we take some practical steps to protect ourselves? Such as: Put everyone on the terrorism 'watch list' on the 'no fly' list. If they're suspected of having terrorist sympathies, why let them fly?"
On page 4A of this same newspaper there's an article entitled, "Experts say Watch Lists a Flawed Tool." The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of people on its watch list, and according to this article, the British have a million people on their watch list. Of these, 99.99% have nothing to do with terrorism and most of the balance have never been convicted of any terrorist related activity. Most are on the list because they're muslim and have similar sounding names as terrorist suspects. Some politicians have even accidentally been put on watch lists. Imagine the chaos and lawsuits that would result, if these innocent people were prevented from getting on a passenger jet. Moreover, these violates the principle Mr. Ryan seems so outraged about--the inconvenience to innocent passengers. Apparently, Mr. Ryan also forgets that in America people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Not only is this evidence that Mr. Ryan doesn't read his own newspaper, but other comments suggest he doesn't even read the syndicated editorials that appear next to his unsigned ones. Mr. Ryan wrote, "Rather than accept the obvious reality that we're at war with radical Muslims, the vast majority of them young males, we will continue scanning grandma for explosives. Fact is, grandma might want to update her unmentionables: Soon she'll be subject to even more privacy invasions with full-body scanners that strip her bare." Mr. Ryan obviously didn't read Charles Krauthammer's column--the one right next to his own--because Mr. Krauthammer writes, "...Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today's idiotic random screening..."
So Mr. Ryan proves his ignorance again. The U.S. is moving more toward a focused profiling of potential terrorists, according to Mr. Krauthammer (no fan of Obama).
The first paragraph of Mr. Ryan's column is more evidence he doesn't read other pundits that appear on his own editorial page. Mr. Ryan wrote that President Obama "finally" admitted we're at war with terrorists. As I noted a few blog entries ago, www.politifact.com rated this claim that Obama wouldn't admit we were at war with terrorists as a "pants on fire lie," but it wasn't necessary for Mr. Ryan to read this website to recognize this lie--Eugene Robinson wrote a column debunking this falsehood last week...a few days before Mr. Ryan plagiarized Dick Cheney by repeating this lie.
Mr. Ryan also joined the chorus of conservative critics demanding that President Obama find a scapegoat for the nearly disastrous Christmas Day attempted attack. President Obama is right not to make the politically convenient decision to blame some individual within the U.S. government unfairly for a mistake made by authorities in the Netherlands.
This column is more evidence Mr. Ryan doesn't read his own newspaper because he makes a ridiculous, impractical suggestion. He states his outrage that every passenger on an airline is going to be scanned and writes, "Rather than assume everyone (sic) a terrorist , why don't we take some practical steps to protect ourselves? Such as: Put everyone on the terrorism 'watch list' on the 'no fly' list. If they're suspected of having terrorist sympathies, why let them fly?"
On page 4A of this same newspaper there's an article entitled, "Experts say Watch Lists a Flawed Tool." The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of people on its watch list, and according to this article, the British have a million people on their watch list. Of these, 99.99% have nothing to do with terrorism and most of the balance have never been convicted of any terrorist related activity. Most are on the list because they're muslim and have similar sounding names as terrorist suspects. Some politicians have even accidentally been put on watch lists. Imagine the chaos and lawsuits that would result, if these innocent people were prevented from getting on a passenger jet. Moreover, these violates the principle Mr. Ryan seems so outraged about--the inconvenience to innocent passengers. Apparently, Mr. Ryan also forgets that in America people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Not only is this evidence that Mr. Ryan doesn't read his own newspaper, but other comments suggest he doesn't even read the syndicated editorials that appear next to his unsigned ones. Mr. Ryan wrote, "Rather than accept the obvious reality that we're at war with radical Muslims, the vast majority of them young males, we will continue scanning grandma for explosives. Fact is, grandma might want to update her unmentionables: Soon she'll be subject to even more privacy invasions with full-body scanners that strip her bare." Mr. Ryan obviously didn't read Charles Krauthammer's column--the one right next to his own--because Mr. Krauthammer writes, "...Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today's idiotic random screening..."
So Mr. Ryan proves his ignorance again. The U.S. is moving more toward a focused profiling of potential terrorists, according to Mr. Krauthammer (no fan of Obama).
The first paragraph of Mr. Ryan's column is more evidence he doesn't read other pundits that appear on his own editorial page. Mr. Ryan wrote that President Obama "finally" admitted we're at war with terrorists. As I noted a few blog entries ago, www.politifact.com rated this claim that Obama wouldn't admit we were at war with terrorists as a "pants on fire lie," but it wasn't necessary for Mr. Ryan to read this website to recognize this lie--Eugene Robinson wrote a column debunking this falsehood last week...a few days before Mr. Ryan plagiarized Dick Cheney by repeating this lie.
Mr. Ryan also joined the chorus of conservative critics demanding that President Obama find a scapegoat for the nearly disastrous Christmas Day attempted attack. President Obama is right not to make the politically convenient decision to blame some individual within the U.S. government unfairly for a mistake made by authorities in the Netherlands.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Michael Ryan defends Brit Hume's ignorant bigotry
Re: "A good-faith attempt to help," from the January 8th edition of the Augusta Chronicle."
Michael Ryan's defense of Brit Hume's insulting comments about Buddhism completely misses the point of the criticism. Instead, Mr. Ryan focuses his commentary on some over-the-top statements Keith Olbermann made. Normally, I agree with Mr. Olbermann, but his comments comparing Mr. Hume to a jihadist were hysterical, and they obscure reasoned criticism of Mr. Hume.
Mr. Ryan ignores the reasoned criticism. Mr. Hume said that Buddhism doesn't offer the redemption and forgiveness found in the Christian faith. According to Robert Thurman, a professor of Tibetan studies at Columbia University, "adultery is considered an ethical sin in Buddhism..." and "Believers have to look to themselves and turn to an ethical way of life for redemption."
Buddhism actually makes more sense than Christianity which depends upon the belief in an omnipotent God (who also happens to be an invisible Jewish man) for redemption. True redemption does come from within. People claiming they find God are simply making an excuse to turn their lives around.
Mr. Hume demonstrated complete ignorance of a religion foreign to him. His attempt at proselytizing Tiger Woods was just stupid and insensitive. It's like something Archie Bunker would've said. Because he's the former anchor of Fox's main news show, maybe Fox News should be renamed the Archie Bunker News.
Michael Ryan's defense of Brit Hume's insulting comments about Buddhism completely misses the point of the criticism. Instead, Mr. Ryan focuses his commentary on some over-the-top statements Keith Olbermann made. Normally, I agree with Mr. Olbermann, but his comments comparing Mr. Hume to a jihadist were hysterical, and they obscure reasoned criticism of Mr. Hume.
Mr. Ryan ignores the reasoned criticism. Mr. Hume said that Buddhism doesn't offer the redemption and forgiveness found in the Christian faith. According to Robert Thurman, a professor of Tibetan studies at Columbia University, "adultery is considered an ethical sin in Buddhism..." and "Believers have to look to themselves and turn to an ethical way of life for redemption."
Buddhism actually makes more sense than Christianity which depends upon the belief in an omnipotent God (who also happens to be an invisible Jewish man) for redemption. True redemption does come from within. People claiming they find God are simply making an excuse to turn their lives around.
Mr. Hume demonstrated complete ignorance of a religion foreign to him. His attempt at proselytizing Tiger Woods was just stupid and insensitive. It's like something Archie Bunker would've said. Because he's the former anchor of Fox's main news show, maybe Fox News should be renamed the Archie Bunker News.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Today's Big Lie
Re: "One by one, targeting the West," from the January 5th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Mr. Ryan writes the Obama administration has "refused to concede that we're even engaged in a war on terror."
This is a gigantic falsehood for which Mr. Ryan should be ashamed.
See www.politifact.com in an article entitled "Cheney says Obama 'doesn't want to admit we're ate war."
Politifact rated this claim a "pants on fire" lie. President Obama has talked about our war against terrorist activities many times. He's simply changed the term from war on terror to war on terrorist activities.
Looks like Dick Cheney is another source for Mr. Ryan's plagiarisms.
Mr. Ryan writes the Obama administration has "refused to concede that we're even engaged in a war on terror."
This is a gigantic falsehood for which Mr. Ryan should be ashamed.
See www.politifact.com in an article entitled "Cheney says Obama 'doesn't want to admit we're ate war."
Politifact rated this claim a "pants on fire" lie. President Obama has talked about our war against terrorist activities many times. He's simply changed the term from war on terror to war on terrorist activities.
Looks like Dick Cheney is another source for Mr. Ryan's plagiarisms.
Monday, January 4, 2010
More Hysteria from Michael Ryan
Re: "Killing us with Kindness," from the December 28th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Michael Ryan hysterically assails the health care bill yet again with some ridiculous hyperbole. He claims the government is "immorally using our descendents' money," to kill us with kindness. This is just perverse. I think one can make the case that the government is immorally using our descendents' money, but it's not by providing universal health care. It's by wasting money on two immoral, unnecessary occupations of third world countries.
Mr. Ryan makes the wild unsupported claim that "leftists ...have utter disdain for this country's freedoms." Here, he gives no examples. I've got news for Mr. Ryan. Just because people disagree with his political opinions doesn't mean they have disdain for freedom. What a jerk!
Then he writes dependency on the government is the equivalent of "an addiction to crack cocaine." I suspect there is a little racist reference in this metaphor. Nevertheless, dependency on the government isn't like a drug addiction. Mr. Ryan depends on the U.S. armed forces for protection. He depends on the police, and firemen to keep him safe. Does that make him the equivalent of a crack addict. What an idiot!
And as in a previous blog entry, he's inventing stuff in the constitution that's not there. He writes the government is out of control and refers the reader to Article V without an explanation. Article V is merely the process by which new amendments are added to the constitution. I see no support for his argument here. You would think he would bother to explain himself instead of blindly hiding behind the flag, the Declaration of Independence, and an Article of the constitution. This is a frequent tactic of conservatives when they have no real point to make. They must think the majority of readers don't know what's in it.
His final two paragraphs are just a mystery to me. He claims that we're about to lose our liberty without explaining how or why. Then he writes, "What is so sad is that this great country could find ways to make health insurance more affordable and available without turning the entire system...on its head." He doesn't say how either, nor does he ever give support to his argument that the health care reform plan is going to cause "irreparable injury to the U.S. constitution."
Sounds like sour grapes to me. All of these conservative governors threatening to take legal action against the health care reform plan are a bunch of sore losers. When conservatives had control of the White House and Congress they did nothing, they had no solutions. Now that the democrats have passed something, they want to take their ball and go home.
If what they claimed democrats did to get the bill passed was unconstitutional, than none of the bills that ever get passed are constitutional.
********************************************************************************
Racist letter of the week award goes to Donald Davis in the January 2nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle. He actually wrote that the U.S. does poorly in health care statistics compared to other countries because we have too many black people and Mexicans whose health care problems are their own fault. He wrote "Fortunately, or unfortunately, our diversity includes racial and ethnic groups prone to abuse their own health..." So in other words, he saying brown-skinned people deserve to suffer because they can't afford good health care.
I wish I could meet this jerk in person and tell them how stupid he is. Mr. Ryan shouldn't allow such embarrassing racist letters on his page, but he wouldn't recognize racism because he is a racist as well.
Michael Ryan hysterically assails the health care bill yet again with some ridiculous hyperbole. He claims the government is "immorally using our descendents' money," to kill us with kindness. This is just perverse. I think one can make the case that the government is immorally using our descendents' money, but it's not by providing universal health care. It's by wasting money on two immoral, unnecessary occupations of third world countries.
Mr. Ryan makes the wild unsupported claim that "leftists ...have utter disdain for this country's freedoms." Here, he gives no examples. I've got news for Mr. Ryan. Just because people disagree with his political opinions doesn't mean they have disdain for freedom. What a jerk!
Then he writes dependency on the government is the equivalent of "an addiction to crack cocaine." I suspect there is a little racist reference in this metaphor. Nevertheless, dependency on the government isn't like a drug addiction. Mr. Ryan depends on the U.S. armed forces for protection. He depends on the police, and firemen to keep him safe. Does that make him the equivalent of a crack addict. What an idiot!
And as in a previous blog entry, he's inventing stuff in the constitution that's not there. He writes the government is out of control and refers the reader to Article V without an explanation. Article V is merely the process by which new amendments are added to the constitution. I see no support for his argument here. You would think he would bother to explain himself instead of blindly hiding behind the flag, the Declaration of Independence, and an Article of the constitution. This is a frequent tactic of conservatives when they have no real point to make. They must think the majority of readers don't know what's in it.
His final two paragraphs are just a mystery to me. He claims that we're about to lose our liberty without explaining how or why. Then he writes, "What is so sad is that this great country could find ways to make health insurance more affordable and available without turning the entire system...on its head." He doesn't say how either, nor does he ever give support to his argument that the health care reform plan is going to cause "irreparable injury to the U.S. constitution."
Sounds like sour grapes to me. All of these conservative governors threatening to take legal action against the health care reform plan are a bunch of sore losers. When conservatives had control of the White House and Congress they did nothing, they had no solutions. Now that the democrats have passed something, they want to take their ball and go home.
If what they claimed democrats did to get the bill passed was unconstitutional, than none of the bills that ever get passed are constitutional.
********************************************************************************
Racist letter of the week award goes to Donald Davis in the January 2nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle. He actually wrote that the U.S. does poorly in health care statistics compared to other countries because we have too many black people and Mexicans whose health care problems are their own fault. He wrote "Fortunately, or unfortunately, our diversity includes racial and ethnic groups prone to abuse their own health..." So in other words, he saying brown-skinned people deserve to suffer because they can't afford good health care.
I wish I could meet this jerk in person and tell them how stupid he is. Mr. Ryan shouldn't allow such embarrassing racist letters on his page, but he wouldn't recognize racism because he is a racist as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)