I know you aren't this dense and just want to stoke an argument, but she seriously claimed that meteorologists who don't sign on to Al Gore-type "we are killing the planet" hysteria should lose their AMS certifications and thus, their jobs. Of course she tries to paint it as science not politics, but she is the one making a political issue over it by demanding that people adopt her view or lose their jobs. This is such typical hard left marxist thuggery. Demand that people adopt some PC position at threat of their livelihood. And why is it so important if a local weatherman believes in the boomer religion of human-induced global warming or not? Unlike the examples she cites, there is no irrefutable proof of it but in fact a robust scientific debate.
The ignorance of the right is beyond help. You can say that perpetual motion is also a robust scientific debate. Just look at the number of patent applications every year on perpetual motion machines (that includes the "water fuel cells" ). But anyone looking for a "seal of approval" from any engineering professional society had better not promote perpetual motion. That's not "hard left marxist thuggery." That's just a fact - perpetual motion is not practically possible. And fact has a liberal bias. Just because you shut your eyes doesn't make the fact go away.
I may be confused, it happens to the best of us. Regarding the meteorologist, if she said something along the lines of Al Gore hysteria, and called for weather reporters to be fired if the they went along with it, is that not more of the mainstream right end of the political spectrum, not the liberal side? Mr. Bond? Mr. AAA ? Not trying to stoke anything, just curious as to how the last couple of posts read. c
Good question. General Patraeus' candor really belied what the US Intel Community already knew since 2006 - the Iraq War increased the threat of global terrorism. Iraq War Fuels Terrorism Threat, U.S. Report Says http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6137678 Morning Edition, September 25, 2006 · The U.S. war in Iraq has increased, not decreased, the threat of terrorism, according to a top-level, classified intelligence summary. Findings of that National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" were first reported over the weekend by The New York Times. The intelligence report finds the war in Iraq has fueled a new generation of Islamic radicalism, which has spread around the globe... Why are we in Iraq? - To secure strategic oil interests and Allies in the Middle East. - To withhold and control key resources from emerging regional powers (China & India) - To maintain a credible threat against menacing 'terror states' (Iran&Syria). - To grease the hands of the Military Industrial Complex that rule this Country. - To scare the American public into surrendering their liberties to an 'all powerful' Federal Government. Control and Power. A more important question - why is the Southern Border WIDE OPEN some 6 years after 911?? Obviously, the safety and security of America's homeland isn't the chief concern here. Is it? Observe the obvious.
Thanks, sorry, I guess I got lazy for a bit here. I really don't see much bias from either person's take on weathermen in our living rooms. This is good, IMO. Back on topic, it seems Mr. Bush was awfully quick to state distinctly that the war is helping to make America safer, regardless of what the General said. I'm not sure I believe that the Admiral, Petraeus' boss, did or would say such snide comments, but if he did, wow. c
Originally, we were supposed to be there to prevent them from getting WMD's, despite the fact that the other branches of the Axis of Evil, N. Korea and Iran, were far greater threats. I continue to wonder if it wasn't largely a continuation of the Bush family feud with saddam. Looking back, you have to marvel at how different history would have been if we had only made it crystal clear to Saddam that we wouldn't stand for him invading Kuwait. And of course, if Jimmy Carter had not paved the way for Ayotollah Khomeini to take over Iran. This is what makes choosing a president so difficult. You can't foresee what momentous decisions they might have to make or how they will react to them.
If you want a revisionist history, you might try this: "If only the CIA did not overthrow a democratically elected, left-leaning Iranian Republic government, we would have a NATO ally in the Middle East today. And a model of democracy!"
She was specifically attacking a local TV weatherman who had said that climate change is natural and cyclical and not caused by humans. She pointed out that the American Meteorological Society, which certifies weathermen, had adopted a statement saying climate change is caused by human activity, ie the Al Gore position. Basically it was an absurd argument on her part. It's like saying if the ABA adopts a resolution against the death penalty, they should kick out any lawyer who doesn't adopt that position. People saw it immediately as yet another crude attempt to silence the debate over global warming. To me, the whole affair was a great example of how pervasive liberal bias is in the media, even in places where you wouldn't expect it. I mean, you don't expect the Weather Channel to be a hotbed of political dispute, but now it is. It's ironic too, since she has just been eviscerated by some pretty intelligent posters who submit comments to her blog. It just goes to show how liberals have this compulsion to politicize everything they touch, even something as mundane as weather reporting.
It is the right who politicized the global warming issue. You don't have to believe what science tells you. But fighting against science based public policy on political grounds is both foolish and immoral. Imagine that when scientists discovered that infectious diseases are passed by bacteria and viruses (and sure there are still people who dispute that today), some people would politicize the immunization policies...