April 25, 2012

Mooney the spinner

Chris Mooney is a journalist who has popularized some hoary old Leftist theories about the psychology of politics. I was researching and writing about those theories when they were still “hot” so I know a bit about them. My most relevant academic journal articles on the subject are listed here. Needless to say, I found that the theories concerned did not stand up under rigorous testing.

Mooney’s recent article “Liberals and conservatives don’t just vote differently. They think differently” has attracted some attention so, although I have had a few laughs at Mooney’s work before (See here and here), I thought I might add just a few more comments.

For a start, Mooney’s work is actually more balanced than what Leftist psychologists themselves have usually said. Mooney can see that a trait ascribed to conservatives can be both a good and a bad thing, which many Leftist psychologists routinely ignored. So what Mooney does is to take a finding which could be read either way and “spin” it so that it makes Leftists look better than conservatives. So one of the things I do is to “unspin” such judgments.

But first a few excerpts from Mooney:

There’s now a large body of evidence showing that those who opt for the political left and those who opt for the political right tend to process information in divergent ways and to differ on any number of psychological traits.

Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots – and new ideas.

Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open – less exploratory, less in need of change – and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change – in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling `Stop!’?”

Now consider another related trait implicated in our divide over reality: the “need for cognitive closure.” This describes discomfort with uncertainty and a desire to resolve it into a firm belief. Someone with a high need for closure tends to seize on a piece of information that dispels doubt or ambiguity, and then freeze, refusing to consider new information. Those who have this trait can also be expected to spend less time processing information than those who are driven by different motivations, such as achieving accuracy.

A number of studies show that conservatives tend to have a greater need for closure than do liberals, which is precisely what you would expect in light of the strong relationship between liberalism and openness. “The finding is very robust,” explained Arie Kruglanski, a University of Maryland psychologist who has pioneered research in this area and worked to develop a scale for measuring the need for closure.

More here

I can’t help laughing at Mooney’s acceptance of the absurd Kruglanski work. You can read my close look at it here. I think I show pretty clearly that the Kruglanski questionnaire measures infantilism rather than need for closure, with Leftists being the infantile ones. And in the same paper I refer to the work of Van Hiel, one of the believers in “Openness”. Van Hiel actually put some hard work into testing the theory that Leftists are more open. Rather embarrassingly, his findings were mostly the opposite of what his theory said. So the claim that Leftists are more “open” rests on sand.

And yet there may be something in it. I did some reseach using proper random sampling (a rarity among psychologists) that found Leftists to be “sensation seekers”. That’s not too different a concept from “openness” but just spins the opposite way. It makes Leftists look shallow rather than conservatives.

So the Mooney writings should not disturb conservatives in any way. The underlying facts are no discredit to conservatives at all.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Email This

Posted by JonJayRay at 11:25 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Agenda based science, Conservatism, News, Psychology, Research/surveys, Science/pseudo-science, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Obama Admin. Proposes Rule That Stops Farm Kids From Performing Chores

I was really hoping this was an article from The Onion, alas, no, it’s real news

(Daily Caller) A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”

Good grief. The strong arm of the Central Government reaches out to get involved with things that are none of their business yet again. But, I think we can all understand that Liberals really hate the idea of people actually having to work. And that they probably will require that unionized labor be hired in place of these kids doing chores.

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

So, not only would the regs restrict kids doing farm work that they’ve done basically forever, but, put safety training and certification in the hands of government bureaucrats.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:31 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Agriculture/Farming, Amnesty/Immigration reform, Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Dept of Labor, Despotism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, Illegal Aliens/Immigration, Nanny State, News, Parenting, Property Rights, States Rights, Totalitarianism, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, government waste, liberalism, paternalism

Trackback URL:

Politico Runs Racially Charged Headline, Calls Rob Portman “Vanilla”

The headline is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about white men*: Politico

When I first saw the headline this morning, the multiple meanings were clear: Rob Portman is in serious need of some sunlight, the notion of a Portman VP is unexciting, Rob Portman is…..whiter than white bread. That’s not a nice thing to say about any potential VP pick, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at a guy who is whiter than Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Just to be sure it wasn’t just me, though, I asked several friends about the banner, and four out of four pointed out, unprompted, the stereotype of the “honky,” “good grief, the man should hit the tanning bed” white man. One of the people I called was John Boehner, who, upon hearing my description of the headline, said “Are you kidding me? You have got to be kidding me.”

The two Politico writers should immediately be suspended for this racially charged headline, which reinforces ugly stereotypes about white guys who’ve apparently never stepped outside.

What’s that? That’s not what the article is about? I’m reading too much into it? Well, my goodness. But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Portman, in contrast — possibly reflecting his strategy but certainly reflecting his personal style — is following a different approach: making himself one of the most boring characters currently on the national stage.

Portman is vanilla, wonky and unflappable. Maybe he’s a safe, conventional, swing-state pick for Mitt Romney, but he’s not exactly the guy who would bring down the house at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

I don’t know, that seems to be stereotyping boring middle aged white men who are boring as….zzzzzzzzz…..where was I? Oh, yes, boring as water.

Just in case, the * leads to a post on a race baiting article by Christopher Hitchens.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:35 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Liberal Media/Bias, News, Politico, Racism, race baiting

Trackback URL:

Obama Loves America… When It Agrees With Him

-By Warner Todd Huston

Obama is an autocrat. Were we a South American nation he’d be our Hugo Chavez. He is not interested in democracy, our republican form of government, or listening to other’s opinions. And he most certainly is not interested in allowing the American people to see their will reflected in their duly elected officials. It’s his way or the highway. Period.

All this is the subject of a recent New York Times piece that, even as it notes Obama’s wild grabs for personal power, tries its best to give cover to a president that has decided that he has no need to work with Congress and intends to bypass both the courts and our elected representatives to put his radical agenda into place.

With its typical, hypocritical partisanship on full display, the Times, the same paper that repeatedly called George W. Bush an imperial president, is now bending over backwards to excuse even more egregious behavior from its Obammessiah.

In fact, the first paragraphs of the two stories liked above are telling in how the Times regards the two presidents and in how the actual issue of executive overreach is but a device in stories meant to sell readers on a picture of the man, not the issue.

Let’s take the first paragraph of the 2006 piece on Bush (my bold):

You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity.

Now let’s look to see how the Times characterizes Obama’s imperialism:

One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

So, in 2006 the Times felt that Bush could not be trusted to work in good faith with Congress because he was a tyrannical, autocrat, yet today, with Obama grabbing far, far more power unto himself than Bush ever dreamed of doing, his actions are excused away because he has to get around that darned ol’ “Congressional obstructionism.”

The current Times piece goes on to introduce several “experts” that similarly excuse away Obama’s outrageous usurpation of power as no big deal, common, typical actions of presidents through history.

All this flacking for Obama’s outrageous misuse of his executive privileges by the Times — and its corresponding previous outrage over the same by Bush — is typical of how the left only uses issues to its advantage. It shows how actual truth doesn’t matter a lick to the left. One would think that executive overreach is executive overreach. If executive power grabs are wrong, then why would it matter from which political party the tyrant hails?

But executive abuses are not what The New York Times cares about. The issue is merely a conduit to express its opinion of a president. Hence, in 2006 Bush’s executive overreach was evil while today it is excused away because “Obama faces stiff Congressional opposition.”

A great resource on the destruction that Obama has wrought on our Republic is Phil Kerpen’s Democracy Denied, a book that details Obama’s attempt to bypass our democracy, our Congress, and you, the voters. In it, Kerpen warns that Obama is using his powers to create regulations to undermine Congress and “radically transform America.”

Regardless, the Times loves Obama’s radicalism and so his abuse of his executive powers is OK in their book… or paper, as it were.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 12:19 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Congress, Constitutionsl crisis, Despotism, Fascism, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, New York Times, News, President, Separation of Powers, Totalitarianism, Unconstitutional, government media, liberalism

Trackback URL:

April 24, 2012

Traitors: American Professors Go to Tehran to Help Mad Mullahs

-By Warner Todd Huston

A couple of so-called American professors recently went to Tehran University to help the radical, anti-American, racist, Islamists propagandize about how wonderful the Mad Mullahs think the Occupy Wall Street “movement” here in America is.

Wonderful, no?

Anti-Americans Alex Vitae, professor at Brooklyn College, Heather Gautney, professor at Fordham University, John Hammond, professor at City University of New York all appeared at the terrorist’s little convention to speak glowingly of the hate spewed by both the OWSers and the Mad Mullahs.

The fact that the Mad Mullahs love the OWS “movement” says an awful lot about what the true nature of OWS is, doesn’t it? It’d be like being on the KKK’s Christmas card list!

Needless to say, Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today and the OWSers are hopeful of instigating as much terror here at home as possible. So, on second thought, I guess these “professors” went to the right country for a how-to lesson.

Maybe we can cancel their passports before they get back.

(H/T The Weekly Standard)

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 11:57 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Foreign Policy, Foreign Relations, Iran, Islamicfascism, Logan Act, National Security, News, Occupy Wall Street, Stupidity, Treason, liberalism, terrorist appeasement

Trackback URL:

MSNBC’s Bashir Suggests Romney Not Drinking Alcohol Could Put Country In Jeopardy

Of course, having a president who was uniquely unqualified for the position, as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden told us, one who has seen historic long term 8%+ unemployment, record debt and deficits, record spending with no reward, wasted billions on failed green companies, wasted $800 billion on his failed Stimulus, has annoyed our allies, and passed a very unliked health care bill, among others, doesn’t put the country in jeopardy

(Daily Caller) On his Monday MSNBC program, just a week after condemning former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to hell based on the Book of Mormon, afternoon host Martin Bashir cited a column from The New York Times’ Timothy Egan to suggest that Romney isn’t fit for the White House because he does not drink.

“A teenage taste of beer aside, Mitt Romney does not consume alcohol, which begs the question — will total abstention put his candidacy, perhaps even this great nation, in jeopardy?” Bashir said. “That’s the conundrum that could be drawn from a column by New York Times writer Timothy Egan, who does not deal in half measures.”

Got that? Because Romney doesn’t drink booze, this country could be in extreme danger!!!!!!1!!!! From the NY Times idiocy

I’ve always thought the beer buddy threshold was nonsense. Still, it’s worth considering what a White House without a tippling tenant would be like. Sobriety, laudable in many respects, does imply rigidity of thought. The best presidents were open-minded, and generally open to a drink. The nondrinkers, at least over the last century or so, were terrible presidents.

See? What we need in the White House is a drunk. Of course, as both Bashir and the Times article point out, both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were non-drinkers. Carter was an abject failure. With Bush, liberals attempt to paint his presidency as a failure, forgetting about the way he turned around the recession he was left with (no blame on Clinton, recessions happen), the way he responded to 9/11 to get America back on track, and turned the economic downturn which resulted from 9/11 around, the way we had historically low unemployment, and how he freed tens of millions from violent and murderous despots/regimes. Everything was going well until the Democrats took over Congress, then things imploded.

Liberals will try anything to deflect away from the pathetic policies of (NMP) Obama, so, expect more as we move towards the general election. At least Romney didn’t eat a dog.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:14 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, MSNBC, Mitt Romney, News, Stupidity, Video, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Sarah Palin Jokes About Having Secret Service Shoot Fish And Game Commissioner

And the 90% liberal media went ballistic, as did the liberal blogs……oh, wait, sorry, I meant crazy Joe Biden said it, and the only other news outlet to cover it other than conservative leaning CNS News is CNN, which didn’t seem to find anything wrong with what Joe said

(CNN) After his tour via airboat, the vice president took to a podium before a small audience, and used a joke to explain that it was his first time touring the Everglades.

“I know Ronnie Bergeron is here,” Biden said, referring to well known Everglades advocate and Florida businessman Ron Bergeron. “He tried to get me out there about 10 years ago. But he didn’t want me to go see it. He wanted me to wrestle alligators. Y’all think I’m kidding. I’m not kidding. He’s one crazy son of a gun.”

As the audience laughed, Biden continued his joke.

“You see this man right here? My Secret Service guy?” the vice president asked, referring to an agent just off stage.

“He said that if I go, he’ll shoot you, Ronnie. I’m only kidding. That’s not true. He didn’t say he’d shoot Ronnie. He said he’d shoot the alligator if I went.”

Ha ha ha, laugh riot. Now, substitute Palin, Romney, or any other Republican name in there, and consider the massive liberal freakout. Of course, those of us in Reality Land, otherwise known as Conservatives, understand it was a joke, one similar to something we’ve potentially said to people we know many times…..oh, you don’t make jokes about shooting your friends? Hmph.

Fortunately, Joe was there to make a speech “highlighting the environmental, economical and ecological benefits of the Everglades”. Well, good thing alligators aren’t a threatened species or something.

Again, we understand it’s a joke. A poor taste joke, but, a joke. This episode of Joe Eats His Foot highlights the partisanship of the media, who would vilify and crucify any Republican who said something similar.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:47 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under CNN, CNS News, Delusional Dupes and DUmmies, Democrats, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Joe Biden, Liberal Media/Bias, News, liberalism

Trackback URL:

April 23, 2012

Black School Kids Take Bat to Piñata Shaped Like White Woman, Media Yawns

-By Warner Todd Huston

Todd Starnes reports that the University of Memphis recently hastened to express its deep regret that it sponsored an event for grade school kids featuring the opportunity to have a grand ol’ time using a stick to smack around a piñata shaped like a white woman. No “racial or gender animosity was intended,” the University plaintively said.

In this day and age when the TV News goes crazy over every example of racism, real or perceived — and mostly just perceived — one cannot help but imagine that were this piñata shaped like a black woman, the media would have lost its tiny mind to report on this incident.

Still, local TV got into the act and noted that some locals were looking askance at the whole situation.

“It didn’t look right, just because of the social climate we’re in right now,” university student Veronica Birmingham told WMC. “How could somebody be so insensitive and not realize this might cause an issue?”

Now, this really isn’t racism at all. Not “reverse” not regular. The theme of the party being held by the university for the kids was a Hawaiian Luau. The piñata was supposed to represent a hula girl, not a “white woman.” It wasn’t even supposed to be a strict representation of Pacific Islanders, for that matter.

So, no, this was no incident of “racism.” And that it was a “white woman” piñata, well, that’s why you’ve not likely heard of this incident.

But, imagine if this were a black skinned piñata. Not only would the race baiters be out in full force but so would the women’s libbers (one in the same, of course). There would be boycotts, demands that people be fired, maybe even charges brought against any convenient patsy.

Sadly, truth rarely matters to the far left and this incident is a perfect example of the double standard of the press. If this were a black skinned piñata instead of a pink skinned one, it wouldn’t matter what the truth is or is not. The incident would be national news and would be played as an example of racism against blacks.

(H/T Moonbattery)

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 2:17 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Activist Journalism, Education, Fox News, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, News, Political Correctness, Racism, liberalism, race baiting

Trackback URL:

Good News: Obama to Act More Like a Dictator

Obama has fully embraced the use of executive powers, and the NY Times works hard to say “yes, this is A-OK”. One has to wonder how they would react if it was a Republican president

One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

Yeah, it’s hard to ruin the country and act like Hugo Chavez when those damned Americans decided to provide a historic beatdown of the Party that controls the House because it was ruining America.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.

But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more.

Except, he isn’t creating jobs for veterans, or anyone else for that matter. He’s not preventing drug shortages, curbing domestic violence, “or more”. He did raise fuel economy standards, which will make motor vehicles more exspensive and less safe. Good job, PBO!

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

Of course, it would be nice if Obama would actually consult with the duly elected representatives of the American People. Perhaps offer up some legislation for Congress to take up. Yet, he doesn’t even send anything over to the Democrat controlled Senate….well, except for his budget proposals, which were unanimously voted down last year and not even brought to the Senate floor this year by the same Democrats.

The rest of the article is simply an attempt to provide political cover for Obama, when the Times would be tearing into a Republican. But, we all know that being the POTUS is hard work, especially when one has no leadership, nor management, skills. It’s one thing to whip up a bunch of left wing folks into a frenzy as a “community organizer”, something quite different having to deal with elected representatives who are (supposedly) responsible to the people who elected them within a Constitutional Republic framework.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:39 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Authoritarianism, Barack Obama, Communism, Congress, Constitution, Constitutionsl crisis, Democrats, Despotism, Fascism, Government corruption, Government incompetence, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Government tyranny, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, House, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Impeachment, Journalistic Malpractice, Journalistic Prostitution, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, New York Times, News, Senate, Separation of Powers, Totalitarianism, Treason, U.S. Constitution, Unconstitutional, anti-Liberty/Freedom, government media, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Obamanomics: 50% Of New College Grads Unemployed/Underemployed

How’s that HopeyChangey crappola working for ya?

(AP) The college class of 2012 is in for a rude welcome to the world of work.

A weak labor market already has left half of young college graduates either jobless or underemployed in positions that don’t fully use their skills and knowledge.

Young adults with bachelor’s degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs — waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example — and that’s confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans.

An analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press lays bare the highly uneven prospects for holders of bachelor’s degrees. (snip)

About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest share in at least 11 years. In 2000, the share was at a low of 41 percent, before the dot-com bust erased job gains for college graduates in the telecommunications and IT fields.

There is simply way too much contained within the article to excerpt, but, suffice to say, those who have graduated over the past few years are learning the extent of the pure miserable failure they voted for in 2008, and that miserable failure has rebounded straight back. The guy they thought was the Lightbringer, the Messiah, The One, told them what their college activist ears wanted to hear, but they never took the time to transition from “fired up and involved” to “hey, would his policies actually work?”

One more thing to point out

On the other end of the scale, the southern U.S., anchored by Texas, was most likely to have young college graduates in higher-skill jobs.

Hmm, so, places that tend to be good Red states work best. Make sure to read the whole thing, which should, of course, be blamed on Bush. Or Palin. The TEA Party. ATMs. China. Tsunamis. But not Obama.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 6:48 am | Comments Off | Trackback (1)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Economy, Education, Jobs, News, Unemployment

Trackback URL:

Links

Roundup | Eternity Matters pinged this post.

April 22, 2012

Bucking The Left’s Claims of GOP Racism, Utah’s Mia Love Takes Nomination

-By Warner Todd Huston

Why, oh, why can’t those racist, women-hating Republicans ever nominate a black woman to anything? I mean, those kindly leftists are right, those evil Republi… oh, wait. Looks like those lying Democrats are wrong again. We see in Utah where Mia Love has just overwhelmingly taken the GOP nomination to run for Utah’s 4th Congressional District.

Let’s see what the Democrats have to say about this nomination. They will probably stick their fingers in their ears and yell “la, la, la” at the top of their lungs to once again drown out the truth. Love herself told me “according to the left, I am not supposed to exist.”

Mia Love didn’t just win the nomination for Utah’s 4th, she ran away with it winning 70.4 percent of the vote with her opponent, an establishment guy, netting a paltry 29.6 percent.

In her address, Love said:

“Jim Matheson should be pretty frightened right now. He should be pretty scared,” she said after clinching the nomination. “He’s never gone against a candidate like me.”

—-

“Today we have an opportunity to do something very special. Today we can start breaking a pattern,” Love exhorted delegates before the final vote. “Today we can start bringing Jim Matheson home. Elect one nominee today, so we can take this fight to Jim Matheson tomorrow.”

Love, the Mayor of Saratoga Springs, was offhandedly termed a “novelty” during the GOP convention by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff who was supporting Love’s rival, Carl Wimmer. Needless to say, after Wimmer was crushed by party faithful, Shurtleff rushed to apologize to Love for the remark.

AG Shurtleff obviously meant nothing racist by the remark — he was simply hamhandedly noting that Love was very new to state-wide politics and a virtual unknown only months ago — but some feel that his badly received remark on the podium helped get Love the nomination.

But let’s not imagine there are hard feelings between Love’s insurgent candidacy and the Utah GOP good old boy network that backed Wimmer. After all, right there that very night, Carl Wimmer graciously jumped up on stage in support of Love urging the party to enthusiastically support her.

Mia Love will face incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson in November. Matheson is thought to be quite vulnerable. Redistricting made his current district less inviting so he jumped from his current 2nd District to the 4th District in a desperate bid to stay in Congress.

I interviewed Love at CPAC this year. I found her vivacious, exciting, and impressive. You will, too…

You can follow Mia Love (and donate to her campaign) at Love4Utah.com, follow on Twitter @MiaBLove, Facebook as well as YouTube.

Come on, folks. Let’s help send Mia Love to Congress.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:35 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Campaign contributions, Congress, Elections, GOP, Racism, Republicans, State Government, Video, race baiting

Trackback URL:

Hollywood Reporter Wishes She Had Disease to Stay Skinny?

-By Warner Todd Huston

I guess now it’s cool in Hollywood to make light of diseases, illnesses, and allergies. At least it is for one Internet entertainment reporterette who apparently wishes that she had some sort of disease if that disease made her skinny. Seriously, this is the sort of vapidity that makes the denizens of Hollyweird and their hangers-on appear so reprehensible.

On her April 9 YouTube entertainment report about the latest Miley Cyrus rumors, host Stephanie Bauer reported that the singer took to Twitter in reply. Tongues were wagging recently that Cyrus might be anorexic due to recent photos of her gaunt figure. Cyrus, though, says she stays skinny mostly because she has a “gluten and lactose allergy.”

“It’s not about weight, it’s about health,” Cyrus said. “Gluten is crap anyway.”

For her part, hostesset Bauer wished she could have a disorder, disease, or allergy, too, if it made her “look amazing” like the teen singer.

It doesn’t seem like Milley’s anorexic. She is photographed leaving the gym every single day and if a gluten and lactose allergy is her diet secret I want it because she looks amazing.

Come on! Now people in Hollywood want to take on diseases and disorders if it makes them look good? Seriously?

There is no reason at all to wish you had a disease just for cosmetic effect. They are called diseases not because they are beneficial to us but because they adversely affect our health! Further, I doubt anyone that really has a disease would wish their misfortune on anyone else.

Yet here we have an attractive, but air-headed entertainment hanger-on like Bauer wishing she had a disease just so she could look good. This really is the sort of empty-headed thinking that gives the people of La La Land such a bad reputation, isn’t it?

Miss Bauer now works for Hollywood scoop.com, but was once a local reporter for an NPR station in Florida as well as AM 850 Miami, and WUFT-TV.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:24 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Hollywood, Journalistic Malpractice, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Psychology, Stupidity, Video, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Barack Obama: Dog Eater

-By Warner Todd Huston

The extremists of the left (you know, Democrats) have been trying to make a big deal out of the time that Mitt Romney put his dog on top of his car in the dim, dark past. They say this proves that Romney is mean, evil, rotten, a dog-hating scumbag.

But in his own memoir President Obama said that he had actually eaten dogs when he lived in Indonesia.

… and yet, these hypocrite lefties say nothing about it. And when they do bother to recognize this in-his-own-words admission from Obama that he has actually eaten dogs, they explain it away as no big deal.

Now, to me neither case is of interest. But what IS of interest here is the hypocrisy of the leftists that want to get all exercised over Romney putting a dog atop a car yet NOT getting the least bit upset over Obama EATING dogs!

This is an obvious hypocrisy because putting a dog on a car pales in comparison to eating the damn thing. If these liars on the left really cared about dogs like they claim they do they’d be even more upset at Obama than they would at Romney.

But they aren’t.

This whole episode proves that they don’t give a damn about dogs. They only care about finding a political attack against Romney. The welfare of dogs is of no interest to them. Democrats and all their little minions are partisan liars through and through.

And now, I couldn’t resist making my own little Youtube movie…

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 1:09 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Democrats, Hypocrisy/Situational Ethics, Journalistic Prostitution, Journalistic incompetence, Liberal Media/Bias, Mitt Romney, News, Video, government media, liberalism

Trackback URL:

Washington Post: Toss The All Volunteer Military

Welcome to Über Liberal World!

(Washington Post) Our lives are cluttered with unnecessary traditions, ideas and institutions. Warm weather came early this year, but there’s still time for a good spring cleaning. After purging old receipts, broken appliances and unloved outfits, what else should we toss? Outlook asked 10 writers what they thought we’d be better off without. From the Cabinet to premium gas to chick flicks, here are their picks.

1. All-volunteer military by Thomas E. Ricks
2. Premium gas by Jeff S. Bartlett
3. Home equity loans by Bethany McLean
4. 3 p.m. school day by Peter Orszag
5. Chick flicks by Melissa Silverstein
6. The Cabinet by Dana Milbank
7. Software patents by Christina Mulligan
8. The social kiss by Meghan Daum
9. Brainstorming by Jonah Lehrer
10. Grades by Melissa Harris-Perry

The above link goes to #1 on the list, the all-volunteer military, with links to the other 9 embedded at the beginning of the story

Since the end of the military draft in 1973, every person joining the U.S. armed forces has done so because he or she asked to be there. Over the past decade, this all-volunteer force has been put to the test and has succeeded, fighting two sustained foreign wars with troops standing up to multiple combat deployments and extreme stress.

This is precisely the reason it is time to get rid of the all-volunteer force. It has been too successful. Our relatively small and highly adept military has made it all too easy for our nation to go to war — and to ignore the consequences.

So, our military is just to darned good, so let’s do away with volunteering and go to a draft?

We had a draft in the 1960s, of course, and it did not stop President Lyndon Johnson from getting into a ground war in Vietnam. But the draft sure did encourage people to pay attention to the war and decide whether they were willing to support it.

Hmm, so even with a draft, LBJ was still rather adventuresome? Then what’s the point? “...reestablishing a draft, with all its Vietnam-era connotations, would cause problems for the military…” Ah. There’s the point. Ruining the best fighting force on the planet, bringing America down off our perch.

As for the others

2. Premium gas by Jeff S. Bartlett (so what if you’re engine can be damaged? You shouldn’t be driving that type of super evil Gaia killing vehicle)
3. Home equity loans by Bethany McLean (actually makes a good point about home owners loading up on debt)
4. 3 p.m. school day by Peter Orszag (makes some good points in keeping school open till 5 or 6pm, but, I think we all know the idea is to provide more indoctrination time for kids. Of course, what of those who play sports, have groups to attend, or work?)
5. Chick flicks by Melissa Silverstein (yes, please!)
6. The Cabinet by Dana Milbank (Milbank makes a few good points on this one, which is the presidential cabinet. Another one would be to get rid of all the unelected and unaccountable czars)
7. Software patents by Christina Mulligan (people are mean for daring to patent their work, oh, and it’s hard to enforce them, so…)
8. The social kiss by Meghan Daum (because we might….gulp….graze lips. Cooties!)
9. Brainstorming by Jonah Lehrer (some good points)
10. Grades by Melissa Harris-Perry (this one deserves a post of its own. It’s about as whiny from a left wing teachers POV as it can get)

I’d get rid of:

Science that doesn’t follow the scientific method
Science that is based on political advocacy
Warmists that don’t live the life they say everyone else should live. I suggest they be drafted into the Peace Corps and dropped in some Third World shit hole, er, developing nation, to see how they live
The permanent political aristrocracy – we need term limits. Which would also eliminate
The neverending campaigns
Voting rights for people who are too unknowledgable to vote

I could surely come up with some more, however, what are your ideas?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:32 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Liberal Media/Bias, Liberal World, National Security, News, WashingtonPost, anti-Liberty/Freedom, liberalism, military

Trackback URL:

April 21, 2012

Revisionism: Old Timer Phil Donahue Injects Racism Into 2002 Iraq War Vote

-By Warner Todd Huston

Old-timer Phil Donahue, about who rumor has it used to have some sort of TV show back in the previous century, has recently turned up on NPR for some unexplainable reason. And, like his long past career, he’s dwelling equally in the past with his new comments about the authorization of force against Iraq in 2002. But he’s adding a new spin to the now irrelevant discussion by adding to it all one of the left’s favorite tropes: racism.

You see, according to Donahue, racism sullied the decision to authorize George Bush to intervene in Iraq in 2002. How is that, you ask? Well, according to Donahue it’s because none of the blacks in Congress voted for the war.

What does that mean? To Donahue it means that these African American congressmen were better, smarter, and free of racism, I guess. Only whites wanted to kill innocent Iraqis, hence the racism.

On NPR’s Smiley & West show*, Donahue floated the idea that all the African Americans — in fact he said “every person of color” — voted against the war in Iraq. Apparently, Donahue thinks that this is because all “the white people in Congress” are racists.

After discussing his involvement in an anti-Iraq war movie back in 2008, this is how the long retired Donahue phrased the issue:

Here’s what I learned. I watched the debate on the Iraq war resolution where, you know, no body obeys the Constitution. Congress says “here, Mr. President, if you think you have to.” You know, and then if it doesn’t go that well it’s “well I did,” and “He said.” It’s a CYA. Cover your… backside. And uh, you know what, you know what, I’m gonna tell you something I bet you didn’t know. Every person of color in the House voted no. Except for Jefferson, Congressman Jefferson from Louisiana. He’s the guy with the money in his freezer, remember that?

Talk to me about that, I mean what did they know that George Bush didn’t know and all those white people in Congress didn’t know?

Now you’re gonna say, “They know their kids are the first ones that are going to go,” that’s certainly part of it but it has to be more to it than that.

So many lies in that bit of doggerel it’s hard to know where to start, but right off the top let’s put to rest the lie that only blacks go to war — or are even the first to go.

Since we went to an all volunteer military, the truth seems to be that middle class and upper middle class families supply more members to our armed forces than the lower classes. So neither “the poor,” as Tavis Smiley tried to say in the podcast, nor African Americans, as Donahue stated, are forced to bear the brunt of our wars. The oft repeated claim that the lower classes join the military because they have few other options is simply a myth.

As to the racial composition of our military, the most recent Heritage Foundation study shows that just over 65% of new recruits are whites whereas new recruits that are “Black or African American” measure in at less than 13%.

Then there is the claim Donahue made that no “people of color” in Congress voted for the Iraq invasion. This is also untrue. Not only did several Hispanic Congressmen vote for the resolution, so did several African American congressmen other than Rep. Jefferson.

Along with the aforementioned Jefferson, Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Albert Wynn (D-MD), and Sanford Bishop (D-GA), also voted yes. So did the only black Republican Representative at the time, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. As John Ruberry quips, “Hey Phil: not all GOPers are white.” (Roll call of vote)

It is rather shameful that the elderly Donahue thought that injecting racism into the long past Iraq resolution from 2002 was a good idea, isn’t it? But that is how these lefties are. They see racism in everything and will spare no historical event to retroactively make it all about race.

*(This discussion starts at about 20 minutes into the podcast. The podcast is titled Phil Donahue and was released 4/12/12)