Patterico's Pontifications


O’Keefe Releases Another NPR Video

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:59 pm

NPR: a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros:

With a bonus: Betsy Liley expressing her excitement over that Muslim Brotherhood donation that NPR never had any intention of accepting.

The Greatest Blog Post Ever Written?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:49 pm

That might be hyperbole . . . but then again, it might not.

I’m in an odd position. In the last few months, I’ve had one foot in the left wing news stream and one foot in the right. My media duality began when conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart hired me to work with him on the Pigford ‘black farmers’ settlement story. I’m a pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal with years of work in print and film backing those positions. Breitbart hired me to bring a different perspective to the non-partisan issue of corruption in Pigford.

Since then, I’ve written both here for the left-leaning Huffington Post and at Breitbart’s right leaning I’ve ended up reading a lot more conservative sites and dealing firsthand with a lot more conservatives than any time since I attended a high school dedicated to the principles of Ayn Rand about 30 years ago.

. . . .

Since working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn’t changed but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I’ve seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives… and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.

Who is saying these things? It is Lee Stranahan at the Huffington Post, a lefty for whom I have never had anything but the utmost respect. So much so that, when he was looking for a way to get in touch with Andrew Breitbart, I not only made the introduction but told Andrew that this was a lefty who was honest and whom he could trust. The rest is history in the making, as Stranahan is involved with Andrew in unveiling the massive fraud that is Pigford.

And as he has become more familiar with Andrew in particular, and conservative sites and conservatives in general . . . all of a sudden, this lefty has started to see just how ugly the left can be. Just one more example:

Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it’s stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn’t exaggerating — proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media.

The only thing is, it isn’t stunning. It’s commonplace. We conservatives are used to seeing big stories be given the cold shoulder by Big Media, for no apparent reason except that the story might benefit Republicans. For example: why does any story about cutting spending not put the cuts in context against our stunning debt and deficit, for example, caused by our unsustainable runaway entitlements?

Can’t run that story. It might benefit Republicans. Let Fox News do it.

Give Lee time. He’s just now catching on. But he’s a totally honest guy, and he’s catching on quick.

Now click that link and prepare yourself to be stunned by the incredible honesty of a lefty.

P.S. I don’t mean to suggest by anything I say in this post that dishonesty or nastiness are exclusively characteristics of the left. If there has one thing I have learned while blogging, it is that people on the right can be every bit as venal and nasty as those on the left. Here on the right, we just notice it more from the left, because you notice nastiness more when it’s directed at you.

Lee is starting to see some fire coming his way, for the sin of working with Breitbart . . . and that helps him notice the left’s nastiness better. But it also takes honesty, which Stranahan has in spades.

Now click the link already.

Happy Birthday to My Dad

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:16 pm

As I have done every March 17 since I started this blog, I am wishing my Dad a Happy Birthday.

He would have been 86 today. I wore the shamrock bow tie.

In the meantime, enjoy a Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

“In Opposition to Liberal Racism;” or “In Which I Answer Yglesias’ Challenge…”

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 12:19 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: Instalink!  Sweet!  Also, William Jacobson via email gave me a reminder about how Yglesias has race-baited in the past, and has shown a creepy obsession with race and white people generally.

Yesterday as an update to a post, I wrote the following:

And just in time [for this post], Yglesias and Think Progress publish this tripe.  Here’s a hint, you cheap race-baiter.  Just because the majority of people wanting something might be white, doesn’t make it automatically racist.  Indeed, the belief that a view is necessarily racist unless there is a rainbow of colors supporting it is itself racist.

So this morning I see a few drive-by comments claiming I was unfair to Yglesias and silly me I didn’t think to try to figure out where it was coming from until much later.  Apparently Yglesias quoted this update (selectively removing boldface, interestingly), and wrote:

I defy you to read my post and find any instance of me calling anyone a racist.

Okay, Yglesias, challenge accepted.  First off let’s start with the definition of racism.  Webster’s dictionary defines it as follows:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Of course my personal definition is just the inverse of Martin Luther King’s dream: to judge a person not by the content of their character but by the color of their skin.  But we will see that both definitions are satisfied.  Now, let’s look at Yglesias’ own words:

A good series of charts by Lee Drutman shows that one of the best predictors of declining Democratic partisan ID between 2008 and 2010 is the number of white people….

I now think the system will remain near equilibrium and what we’ll instead see is white voters growing more Republican as Democrats are more and more seen as the party of non-whites…. 

This does mean, however, that politics will become even more abstracted away from “the issues” and questions of identity will become even more central.

(emphasis added.)  So he is saying that as Democrats increase minority membership, white people will suddenly decide they don’t want to be in the same party any more, and thus “questions of identity will become even more central.”  According to him that white people (and arguably minorities) will associate politically and vote according to color.  He is accusing those whites who switched of segregating themselves according to their “identity” away from the Democrats because they are seen as the party of minorities.  And he wants to pretend he isn’t accusing them of racism?

And I will remind you that racial segregation is considered one of the most egregious types of racial discrimination, and as Webster’s Dictionary (and my own definition) would tell you, that is discrimination and thus racism.  So yes, he was pretty clearly accusing them of racism.

And indeed his own commenters interpreted the post exactly the same way. Seriously read through them and it’s comment after comment reading the post as accusing those white party-switchers of racism.  I have read something like one hundred of those comments and not a single person took away a different meaning from the post.

And he implicitly acknowledges as much by the very choice of his words in his own defense.  Go look at the link.  The post is entitled, “Anti-Anti Racism.”  And he writes this about my words:


Valuing Precious Life

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 10:41 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

You might remember a few days ago I talked about the hate that killed the beautiful* Hadas Fogel.  Here’s a picture of her:

This morning on “teh Twitter” the Confederate Yankee wrote:

The difference between civilized man and animals? Man saves babies. Animals murder them

The link was to this article:

IDF forces and local paramedics helped save the life of a Palestinian woman and her newly born infant Wednesday, at the settlement where Fogel relatives are sitting Shiva for the five Israelis brutally murdered last week.

In case you didn’t know, this link will tell you what “sitting Shiva” is.

Just as IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz arrived in Neve Tzuf to offer his condolences, a Palestinian cab raced towards the community’s entrance. In it, soldiers and paramedics discovered a Palestinian woman in her 20s in advanced stages of labor and facing a life-threatening situation: The umbilical cord was wrapped around the young baby girl’s neck, endangering both her and her mother.

The quick action of settler paramedics and IDF troops deployed in the area saved the mother’s and baby’s life, prompting great excitement and emotions at the site where residents are still mourning the brutal death of five local family members.

Here’s a picture of the little girl, named Jude, and Haim Levin, the paramedic who helped bring her into this world:

Palestinians from the nearby village of Nabi Salah gathered around the paramedics along with the new grandmother and could not hide their joy.

“They thanked us and told us they named the girl Jude,” Corporal Levin said. “I volunteered for Magen David Adom since age 15 and it’s the first time I witnessed childbirth. It was an amazing feeling, to hold the girl that was just born in my arms, and to know that in this complex place we did something good.”

And good for them, but it was funny that not half an hour before that story, I also read this story, coming from England:

Holding her newborn son Tom for the first time, Tracy Godwin marvelled at his eyelashes, and counted every precious finger and toe.

After the drama of his arrival at just 22 weeks, she knew she had a little fighter in her arms.

But at a mere one pound, and battling to breathe, he would need all the help he could get. That help never came.

Forty-six minutes later, and despite her desperate pleas to midwives for assistance, Miss Godwin’s son died as she held him.

She has since been told that the hospital has a policy not to resuscitate babies born earlier than 24 weeks into pregnancy.

Yesterday Miss Godwin, who visits her little boy’s grave every day, told how she is haunted by fears she and her partner didn’t do enough to help their baby when the medics around her refused.

‘They put him in my arms and he cried and was wriggling around. I could feel him breathing and see his eyelashes and fingers and toes,’ she said.

‘But I kept thinking, “Where’s the incubator?” We were begging the midwives to do something to help him but no one was saying anything. He was not stillborn, he was trying to live.

‘If they had tried for an hour and said they couldn’t do anything more for him or he was severely brain damaged, that would have been different, but he wasn’t given a chance.’

That is not the policy of England’s NHS, so much as that specific hospital.  The policy is described as follows:

Although the NHS offers guidance on when to resuscitate premature babies, health trusts can decide individually whether or not to follow it.

Under the guidelines, doctors are advised not to try to save those born under 22 weeks as they are too underdeveloped.

Between 22 and 23 weeks it is not thought to be in the child’s best interests but can be done at the parents’ request after discussion of the likely outcomes.

At 23-25 weeks babies are routinely resucitated. Even with expert round-the-clock care, only 1 per cent of 23-weekers survive without disability.

As indeed, one NHS official likes it that way:

Babies born after just 23 weeks of pregnancy or earlier should be left to die, a leading NHS official has said.

Dr Daphne Austin said that despite millions being spent on specialised treatments, very few of these children survive as their tiny bodies are too underdeveloped.

She claimed keeping them alive is only ‘prolonging their agony’, and it would be better to invest the money in care for cancer sufferers or the disabled.

Dr Austin, who advises local health trusts how to spend their budgets, said doctors were ‘doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers’ and that treatments have ‘very marginal benefit’

It’s always in the name of mercy when these types come to deprive you of your life unworthy of life, isn’t it?

The Confederate Yankee says that humans don’t kill babies, but animals do.  He obviously knows that is not literally true, but surely he means that this is the difference between being civilized and being a barbarian.  Of course the Palestinians who murdered Hadas and their supporters are barbarians.  But so are these people who believe it is right to watch a mother plea for her child’s life, to just give the child a chance, and then turn away from her and walk away.  That is savage, too.


* For the record all babies are beautiful.  Except maybe baby Hitler.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

OMG! Time Travel is Possible! (Update: Video Added)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:41 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: Here’s some tangentially related (and funny!) video from Futurama.  In this clip, Fry is back in time (in the year 1947, I believe) and he had met two people be believed were his own grandmother and grandfather.  And then he accidentally gets his possible grandfather killed.  So then he attempts to console his possible grandmother and things go horribly/hilariously wrong:

Grandma Paradox
Jokes The Comedy Awards The Comedy Central Roast of Donald Trump

You know for a long time I have felt that much of physics has gone into dubious territory.  Take quantum physics, for instance.  According to them, nothing happens until it is observed.  So, um, how exactly do you prove that?  Science involves observable phenomenon.  Talking about the non-observable strikes me as more akin to religion than science, given there is literally no way to verify the theory.

And likewise, this latest bit from some of the scientists working on the Hadron Collider is extremely dubious:

Large Hadron Collider Could Be World’s First Time Machine, Researchers’ Theory Suggests

If the latest theory of Tom Weiler and Chui Man Ho is right, the Large Hadron Collider — the world’s largest atom smasher that started regular operation last year — could be the first machine capable of causing matter to travel backwards in time.

“Our theory is a long shot,” admitted Weiler, who is a physics professor at Vanderbilt University…

Okay, stop right here.  If it is very unlikely to be right, it’s not a theory.  It’s a hypothesis.  In science, a theory is a hypothesis backed up by a lot of experimental evidence and observation (there’s that word again).

…”but it doesn’t violate any laws of physics or experimental constraints.”

One of the major goals of the collider is to find the elusive Higgs boson: the particle that physicists invoke to explain why particles like protons, neutrons and electrons have mass. If the collider succeeds in producing the Higgs boson, some scientists predict that it will create a second particle, called the Higgs singlet, at the same time.

According to Weiler and Ho’s theory, these singlets should have the ability to jump into an extra, fifth dimension where they can move either forward or backward in time and reappear in the future or past.

“One of the attractive things about this approach to time travel is that it avoids all the big paradoxes,” Weiler said. “Because time travel is limited to these special particles, it is not possible for a man to travel back in time and murder one of his parents before he himself is born, for example. However, if scientists could control the production of Higgs singlets, they might be able to send messages to the past or future.”

And there is where he loses all credibility with me.  You solved the paradox problem?  Really?

Well, let’s try to imagine a scenario.  Now obviously a person would have to build a receiver for these messages.  So we would be unlikely to be able to change our past.  But suppose Tom Weiler, above, decided to give it a try anyway.  So he sends a message tomorrow going back in time that says the following: “Adolf Hilter, born April 20, 1889, in Austria.  He will murder millions of innocents and plunge the entire world into war.  Kill him, please.”  So by some fantastic set of circumstances it turns out that that Nikola Tesla was even smarter than we realized and in 1888 he built a machine capable of receiving those messages and hears it.  And imagine further that Tesla decides to act on it, and goes over to Austria and kills baby Hitler, and no one is the wiser that he did it or the consequences of that action.  Okay, so then the holocaust doesn’t happen and so on…  so time proceeds forward until 2011, and Tom Weiler figures out how to build a time-messenger machine as described here.  But why on Earth would he send a message back in time to stop an event that never occurred in his timeline?  But if he doesn’t send that message back, then how did Tesla receive the message?  Gee, sounds like a paradox, to me.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0849 secs.