[posted by Justin Levine] 

Here is an example of a typical lie in the media in order to try and bolster the man-made global warming hysterics out there.

Notice the last sentence of the article –

“Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly ‘dug (his) heels in’ even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.”

The clear implication from this sentence is that Dr. Gray doesn’t believe that the world is “getting hotter” (and therefore, he is a kook who can be dismissed). But that sentence is an out and out lie. Gray has never disputed that the “world is getting hotter”. Instead, (more…)

Remember that kid in grade school who pointed something out to you — and when you looked, he said: “Made you look!”

Did you ever wonder what that kid is doing now?

Stuart Buck has the answer: he’s a social psychologist.

[Posted by Jack Dunphy]

Last June 3, LAPD officers Kristina Ripatti and Joe Meyer chased down a career criminal who had just robbed a gas station in South Los Angeles. The suspect shot Ripatti, nearly killing her and leaving her paralyzed from the chest down. Meyer then shot and killed the man. (Patterico wrote about it here, and I wrote this column about it on NRO.) On May 10, Meyer will be recognized with the LAPD’s Medal of Valor, the department’s highest award. And what will Ripatti get?

She’ll get to watch. From her wheelchair.

The powers within the LAPD who decide such matters have determined that Ripatti, despite the extreme sacrifice she made, was somehow less valorous than her partner was that night. This is an outrage, and it demonstrates that the LAPD brass is once again tone-deaf to the sentiments of the cops on the street.

In comments to Justin Levine’s post about people killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver, a few leftists are arguing that the illegal status of the drunk driver is irrelevant unless I can show that illegals drive drunk at a higher rate than do legal citizens.

This is nonsense, as an analogy will help show.

Imagine that I invite 20 people to my party. 10 other people crash it.

1 of every 5 people spills drinks on the carpet. This goes for party crashers as well as invited guests.

Because I invited 20 guests, I expected 4 drinks spilled on the carpet. Because I ended up with 30 guests, I got 6 spilled drinks.

It should be obvious that I am going to be extra annoyed by the 2 drinks spilled by the 10 party crashers — even though they spilled drinks at the same rate as the invited guests.

I see the 4 spilled drinks, spilled by invited guests, as the cost of throwing a party. But I am especially annoyed at the 2 drinks spilled by the people I didn’t even invite.

Because I didn’t invite them. They never should have been here in the first place.

Not to mention that the party was noisier than I’d wanted it to be, and many people had to stand, because there weren’t enough seats. There’s a reason I invited only 20 people.

I am utterly unmoved by lectures that I am wrong to be more upset at the party crashers, because they spilled drinks at the same rate as the people I invited.

I don’t care. I didn’t invite them.

I am utterly unmoved by arguments that “people wearing red shirts” still would have spilled drinks at the rate of 1 spilled drink per 5 guests.

I don’t care. I didn’t invite them.

Don’t you get it? I didn’t invite them.

P.S. One more point. If the party crashers are all short, and I ask them to leave, that doesn’t show that I am prejudiced against short people. I am prejudiced against party crashers. If you’ll notice, I invited plenty of short people to the party. . .