Shades of Galileo

Recently, a second round of emails taken from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were released online. This release -- dubbed "ClimateGate 2.0" -- is once again revealing that those scientists and politicians pushing an alarmist view of Earth's climate being in danger due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions have engaged in deception, distortion, intimidation and even criminal activities as pertains to Freedom of Information legislation.

As bad as the revelation has been, the response by those whose careers and financial interests are dependent upon such alarmist dogma has been draconian.

Donna Laframboise who hosts the excellent climate change skeptic blog No Frakking Consensus and is the author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert recently reported on how fellow blogger Roger Tattersall -- who runs Tallbloke's Talkshop -- was recently subjugated to officially sanctioned persecution.

Tallbloke just happened to be one of the first people to report and link to the latest batch of released emails. Because of it, last week the police came to his home and seized both his computers and router and even attempted to coerce access to his blog. You can read more about it via a National Post article authored by Ms. Laframboise: Climate Crackdown.

And Tallbloke was not the only person being targeted. As it turns out, the U.S. Justice Department had sent a formal request to blogging company WordPress to have all communications and records ("evidence" as they put it) for Tallbloke as well as Jeff ID at the Air Vent (http://NOconsensus.wordpress.com) as well as noted Canadian mathematician -- and co-destroyer of Michael Mann's hockey stick -- Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog.

This is more than a little disturbing. The original ClimateGate emails clearly revealed criminal breaches of Access to Information laws on both sides of the ocean. Did the U.S. Justice Department send the police out to seize the computers of those involved? No. Did they send any notice to the University of East Anglia or Penn State (Michael Mann's employer) to have their data files and emails frozen as "evidence" of a crime? No.

The only action taken in response to the original ClimateGate release were complete whitewashes (greenwashes as it were) by both UK officials who barely lifted a finger in their examinations and Penn State who didn't even depose key figures who would have revealed a great deal about what was really going on.

And yet average citizen bloggers who simply redirected readers to information from another source that was out on the internet are being treated as criminals. Why? Because they did the one thing that is not to be tolerated when dealing with climate change alarmism: they were skeptics.

It just goes to show, one cannot question the supposed science nor the stances of the religious leaders of the day without facing totalitarian authority.

Science is the child of skepticism.

When skeptics are treated as heretics, you are no longer dealing with science. You are dealing with the blind faith of a religion.

NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

A little perspective on Canada's homicide rate...

A friend of mine posted an article today in the Globe & Mail discussing new statistical data indicating that Canada's homicide rate is down to its lowest levels in 44 years. She being one opposing the Conservatives used this information to debase the Conservatives law and order agenda specifically as it relates to prisons.

Here's how I look at it.

The peak murder rate over the last 44 years was in 1975 when Canada was at 3.03 murders per 100,000 people. Today the rate is at 1.3 murders per 100,000 people.

Dropping roughly 57 percent seems like a big deal, enough that it might call into question the need for more prisons today right? Well, not really.

If you look at statistical data on violent crime, 44 years ago there were approximately 350 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 people. That peaked with a spike around 1992 to roughly 1,100 incidents per 100,000. Today, the rate is approximately 900 incidents per 100,000.

With those numbers in hand you can determine that homicide accounted for 0.37% of all violent crime in 1967 and 0.6% at its 1970's peak. Today it accounts for 0.17% of all violent crimes.

So while it may seem like there's a huge drop in homicide rates, as a percentage of all violent crimes it amounted to a decrease of 0.43% from the peak rate and 0.2% from where it was 44 years ago.

Hardly seems impressive, doesn't it?

If the media and the left want to talk about crime over the last 44 years, I'm all for it. Our violent crime rate today is 260% of what it was 44 years ago. Doesn't sound like crime is under control when you put it that way, does it?

*** Update ***

A comment by BlameCrash actually makes a very interesting point. These numbers are representative of a per 100,000 people in Canada. But that doesn't take into account the growing population.

The population was 20 million in 1966, 22 million in 1976 and is presently 33.7 million. If one were to assume the percentage convicted remained the same, that would mean that the prison population today would actually be 4 times that of what it was in the 1960's.

Yet, when one looks at incarceration rates, this is not the case. Alarmingly, it is quite the opposite!

In fact, in 1966 the total number of adults incarcerated was twice the number of incidents of violent crime. By the 1990's the numbers were exactly the same. So, while violent crime had been increasing, the number sent to prison for violent offences as a percent of all convictions would have actually had to decrease significantly.

Do we need any further proof that violent offences have been treated with increasing leniency?

Thieves preying on "poor" Wall Street protestors

The New York Post had an interesting article posted yesterday about how thieves had been preying on the Occupy Wall Street protestors.

I feel sorry for anybody that has been robbed. But the first few paragraphs of the article were particularly enlightening.

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500."

Hmm... pricey cameras, phones and a $5,500 Apple laptop. I have an Apple laptop. I can't afford one that runs $5,500 though.

I guess I need to be part of the 1 percent of the 99 percent of the... whatever...

Creative Accounting and the Toronto Budget

Previously, I mentioned the abysmal track record of David Miller who left Toronto's debt and annual budget 50 percent higher only seven years after he arrived. As such, it isn't very difficult to understand how every year he would have posted larger and larger budget shortfalls.

The budget before David Miller took office had a projected shortfall of $128.9 million. David Miller's first budget in 2004 had a project shortfall of $344 million. In 2005, it rose to $400 million. In 2006, $532 million. In 2007, $575 million. In 2008, $415 million. And in 2009, $679 million.

Notice how most of the time the shortfall got higher and higher and never once got into the arena of a surplus? Even after the introduction of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Taxes as well as a 3% property tax hike, the 2009 budget deficit continued to bloom.

And yet in 2010, shortly before his departure, David Miller was able to pull off a magic trick of going from continuous and at times record deficits into a $250 million surplus. He even found an extra $100 million in a sock drawer in City Hall just before he left office.

It's a miracle!

Present Mayor Rob Ford, having already toasted the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer taxes, is projecting a $774 million budget shortfall for 2011. Of course, Ford opponents are up in arms suggesting he has been lying about the "gravy train" spending down at City Hall and that he somehow has created a $1 billion turnaround in Toronto's financial situation.

Now, I don't believe government budgets. I'm of the mindset that budgets are one part accounting and three parts political theatre and always assume that whoever is in power is going to be playing creative accounting to make their opponents look bad and themselves look good. But looking at the numbers, one very interesting thing popped into my mind...

It's really hard to believe that with no major spending cuts Miller could push Toronto's financials $1 billion upwards over the course of one year during the worst recession since the Great Depression. It's equally hard to believe that having actually decreased spending Rob Ford could push Toronto's financials $1 billion downwards even with ridding Toronto of two of David Miller's tax grabs.

However, if the shortfall in 2009 was $680 million and let's say hypothetically that nothing actually did change going into 2010's budget and the surplus was creative accounting. And let's also say hypothetically that Miller honestly did find $100 million.

Using 2009's numbers that would put the budget shortfall at $580 million. That's roughly $200 million less than this year's projected shortfall. Coincidentally, $200 million is precisely what was taken out of city revenues with Rob Ford's cancellation of the vehicle registration and land transfer taxes.

It's almost like David Miller's last budget shortfall never did turn into a surplus and this year's increased shortfall was entirely because of the Vehicle Registration and Land Transfer Tax elimination.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Anti floor-crossing bill and the Titanic's deck chairs

There has been some talk recently about NDP MP Peter Stoffer's attempts to pass a bill that would prevent MP's from leaving one party to join another party in the House of Commons... commonly referred to as floor-crossing. It is his and many other people's belief that if a person is elected under the banner of one party, for them to leave that party and join another is a betrayal of the constituents who elected that MP.

Nonsense.

The problem is not in whether a person leaves one party and joins another. The problem is with the whole concept of parties in general.

Citizens are voting for parties. Not for ideas. Not for MP's who live in the area and understand both the needs and how to best represent the interests of the constituents. They are voting for parties.

The recent election of countless placeholder NDP MP's in Quebec is indicative of the real problem here. How is it possible that people who have never set foot in an area can become the functional leader of that area?

The fact that the focus is on the party and not on the individual best suited to represent the local constituents is a betrayal of the whole concept of local representation in government. Local constituents are no longer voting for local representation. They are voting largely for the image and rhetoric and not for needs and ideas.

I have no sympathy for this bill because it is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Party focused systems of government are the problem, not whether a person decides that the best interests for their constituents lies in voting or even sitting with the government.

If he or anybody else has a problem with MP's deciding that it is better to be part of the government who makes decisions affecting their local constituency rather than part of a party on the sidelines, then the solution is simple. Don't ban floor-crossing. Ban the concept of parties. That would take care of two birds with one stone.

No more placeholder candidates.

No more floor-crossing.

Just a return to the real purpose of local representation.

Follow Up: Jack makes good

As a follow up to my previous post calling Jack Layton out on his stance on civility in the House of Commons and the episode of former Senate page Brigitte DePape's disrespect to the Governor General, the House of Commons and Parliament in general...

...I have to commend him on doing what none of my left-wing friends are doing and stating that what she did was in fact wrong.

I guess he realized the gulf that would exist between a call for civility and keeping silent after the first shot taken is from his side of the political spectrum. Of course, while nobody is acting out, it's just as expected seeing how the smugness and insincerity hasn't taken a bow yet.

But it's a start.

I guess it helps when the natural egotist party isn't the one taking the lead and guiding the House of Commons' civility into a nosedive on the first chance to speak.

Calling Out Jack Layton On Civility

So, Jack... you're the one who was so fired up about civility in this session of Parliament. Not that you've really kept your word so far.

I have yet to hear word one from you about Brigette DePape, the young Senate page who disrupted the Governor General during the throne speech with a dramatic and churlish demonstration.

It doesn't surprise me that the media seems to be going out of its way to avoid having to ask you your opinion on this. It's much easier for them to build this unprofessional imbecile up as some martyr of civil disobedience without exposing her to the yardstick that you set for Parliament.

But if you're so dedicated to transforming Parliament into a place where the people charged by Canadians to keep the wheels of government turning productively and politely, let's hear what you have to say about one of those people turning her back on her responsibilities and in fact disrespecting the institution and mechanisms (the throne speech) of Parliament.

The definition of civility is quite clear. And this page certainly was neither courteous nor polite.

So let's hear it.

We'll wait.

From the makers of Scam Wow!

Definitely the solution to global warming / climate change / climate disruption / insert-next-ill-conceived-and-deceptive-terminology-here.

* Viewer Discretion is Advised *

Dispelling the Myth of the 60% Against Harper

We've heard it before. It's nothing new. Supporters of the NDP and the also-ran parties are once again claiming that, while the Conservatives achieved a majority, a clear majority of 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives.

Mindless, uneducated nonsense.

The only way to claim that the majority were voting against the Conservatives is if there was a virtual guarantee that either the Conservatives, a) could not have polled higher than they did on election day, or b) could in no way have hit 50 percent of the vote.

Running up to the election, polls had the Conservatives as high as 43 percent or as low as 36 percent with the Conservatives most of the time hovering in the 39 percent region.

However, Compass appears to be one of the few companies that asked the all-important question that the "Anything But Conservative" equation absolutely depends upon: voter's second intentions.

And that is a telling story indeed.

According to the real world numbers, the Conservatives were the second choice for 11 percent of the population. So, the idea that the majority of voters were voting against the Harper Conservatives has no basis in reality.

In fact, if the Conservatives kept their steady base of 39 percent and everybody who would have voted for the Conservatives with their second choice in fact did vote for their second choice, the Conservatives would have unquestionably cracked the majority marker.

But I'm not arguing against reality the way that the whining, sore-losers are. The reality is that 39 percent of the population voted for the Conservatives. And knowing that the Conservatives were the second choice of enough voters to put them into absolute majority territory, suggesting that 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives only holds true if you also say that:

1. 69% of voters voted against the NDP
2. 81% of voters voted against the Liberals
3. 94% of voters voted against the Bloc
4. 96% of voters voted against the Green Party

Now, can we put this sore-loser nonsense to bed once and for all?

** UPDATE **

And one other point I wanted to mention. The idea of an "Anything But Conservative" majority has one other major detractor. We already know how much support Canadians had in the past with an "Anything But Conservative" situation. And only 4 out of 10 Canadians supported it.

Anything? Sorry, but it looks like that 60 percent number is actually the opposite: 60 percent of Canadians are against "ANYTHING But Conservative".

** SECOND UPDATE **

In the comments, Oxygentax linked his list of significant decisions/programs made by parties who obtained a majority of the house without achieving a majority of the votes. Considering the snail's pace of significant government decisions/programs one sees in minority governments (such as the past 5 years) I imagine that you could easily count a good two-thirds of that list as gone. (h/t to Oxygentax)

And on a related note, imagine how exaggerated that kind of problem would be in a multi-party proportional representation system. Actually, you don't even have to imagine...

19 point lead today... gone tomorrow

A lot of folks on the Blogging Tories are of course ecstatic about the prospect that the Conservatives are polling 43%, a whopping 19 points ahead of the Liberals. This puts the Conservatives into majority territory.

But let's not forget what happens every single time we see one of these polls.

Next week another poll will come out dropping the Conservatives down to 37 to 38% and the media will say the Conservatives must have lost the faith of the Canadian public. I'm sure Frank Graves over at Ekos is doing his own completely unbiased polling which will place the Liberals much higher and the Conservatives much lower.

After all, he has to give Jane Taber something to drool over when she interviews him next.

So, let's not get too hasty here. The election hasn't been called yet and there's a lot of ink to be spilled / pixels to be cycled before a vote even takes place. I certainly won't hide my preference of a Conservative majority government. And I think most Canadians are going to consider voting for the Conservatives if only to end the bothersome trips to the polling booth that the Opposition never seems to tire of.

Pat Martin: The MP Who'd Ignore You

It was really interesting to watch the videos that Hunter at Climbing Out of the Dark assembled showing the disgraceful antics of the Opposition members last week during the witch hunt... er... Commons Committee pretending to investigate whether Bev Oda attempted to mislead Parliament. Discussions of Bev Oda's actions has become completely nauseating; during the committee NDP MP Pat Martin stated several times that how she operates is a "terrible way to conduct business."

Unfortunately for him, in accusing her he displayed how he chooses to deal with requests he doesn't like: he ignores them.

If you go to Hunter's video titled NDP MP Pat Martin Jumps The Shark and skip over to 7:25 you'll hear him describe what he would rather she have done stating, "Why didn't you just not sign it... you could have avoided all this controversy by letting it die... letting it gather dust... never deal with the damn thing."

Well, isn't that an interesting insight into the mind of Pat Martin?

I wonder what his constituents would say if they were to find out that when Pat Martin doesn't want to deal with requests of his office -- what for actual ministers is official government business -- he feels it acceptable to just ignore them?

His ridiculous and despicable antics aside, if you compare the methodology that Bev Oda employed in this situation -- a methodology that the Tories have shown to be standard practice -- to Pat Martin's preference of just ignoring requests made of the government, clearly Pat Martin is the one displaying a complete lack of professionalism.

He sure raised a stink in the committee about MP's not having the option of being silent or as he put it pleading the fifth (note to Mr. Martin: Canada doesn't have a fifth amendment). And yet he feels it acceptable for MP's to ignore requests?

If this is how the NDP would run government, thank God they never will.

The Co-opting of Remembrance

Today is a day for reflection.

Reflection on the cost of our freedom. Reflection on the unconditional love of those fellow citizens who stand in the ranks of our military and put themselves on the line for those of us who do not, will not or cannot for ourselves.

And yet there are those amongst us who -- for one reason or another -- can't put self-interest and self-importance aside. Even for one occasion of such importance.

Put simply, they just don't get it.

These are the people who feel the need to co-opt every important message for their own interests. Whether it be animal activists who dilute the merits of our soldier citizens by distributing purple poppies to honor animals that died during war or peace activists who hold such self-importance that they cannot leave well alone by distributing white poppies to promote peace through non-conflict, something I'm sure every Holocaust survivor thanks the maker never happened while they were lined up in the death camps.

These activists clearly don't get it.

Remembrance Day is already about peace. Does the fact that ceremonies and our quiet reflections take place at the moment that the war ended mean nothing? It is already about the lives of all those who served and all that is protected or lost, whether man or beast.

Do these groups need another version of the poppy? Unless they are trying to draw attention to their activism -- which ultimately means they value self-promotion over self-reflection -- the answer is clearly no.

Our soldiers stand on a plane of citizenry that most of us will never quite fathom. Their families know all too well the cost. It is unfortunate that self-centered activists just cannot put their self-interests aside... even for one day.

Perhaps if these activists reflected on exactly what Remembrance Day is, they might just realize that the red poppy already symbolizes what their co-opt poppies are supposed to mean. This lack of understanding only turns their co-opt poppies into a exercise in self-mockery; turning a day of selfless remembrance into a day of selfish ignorance and obliviousness.

Lest we forget... Clearly some of us already have.

Philosophy VS Emotional Reactions

I recently got into a heated discussion about whether hiding one's political leanings is in fact any part of one's political beliefs themselves rather than just an emotional response to the fear of public scrutiny. And it got me thinking.

Is it even possible to both believe that the philosophy one embraces is correct and should be reality but also believe that this philosophy should be hidden?

And I don't mean it should be hidden on a personal level because of one's own discomfort. I mean, hidden on a philosophical level in that the philosophy's very existence is dependent upon it being hidden... kind of like God must be hidden for faith to exist.

It seems to me that possessing political beliefs is completely separate of how one chooses to express those beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. If one's expression of a belief were an actual part of that political philosophy itself, then we would have to have separate categorizations for:

Closeted/Anonymous

Fair-Weather

Begrudging

Active

Extremist

But we all believe that our political views are correct. That's why it's called a belief. If I believe that a free-market economy is the best solution to global economics, then I'd want to see it enacted. I wouldn't want to see it hidden. And in fact, I can't simultaneously believe that something should be enacted and hidden.

If I believe that a free-market economy is the best solution but I'm afraid to let people know, then anonymity isn't part of that economic belief. It's not part of that political categorization. Anonymity is part of who I am. It's a part of my emotional wiring and my response and is nothing more than the connective tissue between my beliefs and the opposing belief.

Or am I wrong here and it is possible that a person can both believe that something should be enacted while simultaneously believing it should be hidden?

Mayor Rob Ford... yes, it's official!

All I can say is, thank the maker... we have a real fiscal conservative in control in Canada. And in Toronto of all places!

The city needed shock treatment and that's what it got. I certainly am hopeful that Rob Ford surprises everybody and is able to implement his seemingly mountainous platform.

More subways? Yes!

Less streetcars? Double yes!

Respect for drivers? Triple yes!

Councillors being held accountable for both their voting and spending? You better believe it!

And, uh... Mr Miller? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your legacy has arrived. And his name is Rob Ford.

Tomorrow is the End... Hallelujah!

Regardless of who becomes Mayor of Toronto tomorrow -- George Smitherman or Rob Ford -- I think the overwhelming majority of Torontonians can breathe a sigh of relief that the David Miller regime will be gone.

It is disturbing to look at Toronto today in comparison to where we were before David Miller took office. The city has become a dump. The roads have become a disaster. The unions have turned the city into their own fiefdom.

And the cost? The yearly city budget is now 50% larger than when Miller took office.

With nothing to show for it.

Not a single monument to the success of David Miller.

Why? Because David Miller is the ultimate failure. The only thing people will think of when David Miller's name is spoke will be the smell of garbage piling up in the streets.

Regardless of whether my favored candidate -- Rob Ford -- wins tomorrow or not, I will be able to smile on Tuesday knowing that David Miller is gone. Hallelujah.

Toronto Mayoral Poll Fabrication?

I have suspected all along that the polls showing George Smitherman running a much closer race to Rob Ford were in some ways being fabricated to change the course of the Toronto Mayoral election. It appears that the Globe & Mail has finally given us some proof that something is afoot.

The Globe & Mail are reporting tonight that the latest Nanos poll -- conducted after Rocco Rossi dropped out -- puts Rob Ford's support at 43.9 percent versus George Smitherman's 40.5% and Joe Pantalone at 15%. According to their numbers, the "lion's share" of Rocco Rossi's supporters have migrated to George Smitherman's camp.

If you will recall, just a week ago, Ipsos-Reid pegged George Smitherman's support at 31% with Rob Ford at 30% thus showing a much tighter race. They even mentioned that if you take into account committed voters, George Smitherman's lead over Rob Ford was in fact 6%.

This is where the possible fabrication starts to reveal itself...

If we take Nanos' indication that most of the Rocco Rossi's support went to George Smitherman and apply it to the numbers from the Ipsos-Reid poll, we should in fact see Rob Ford polling in the low to mid 30% range with Smitherman at 40% at least. And yet Nanos shows that we are absolutely nowhere near that scenario.

Additionally, last week Rob Ford's camp indicated that their own internal numbers had him much closer to the 50% mark than what was being reported by Ipsos-Reid, a fact that NOW Magazine derided with their typical, black tooth grin. And yet, if we are to take Nanos' poll as accurate, it would appear that Ford's internal polling was in fact more reliable than Ipsos-Reid.

Which begs the question: what the hell is going on that the polls would be so ridiculously off the mark?

Let's remember that it was the poll Ipsos-Reid released on September 27th pegging Rob Ford's support at 28% against George Smitherman at 23% that convinced Sarah Thomson to bow out of the race and throw her support behind Smitherman. It was also their polling that convinced Rocco Rossi to drop out this past week.

So, we either have both Nanos and Rob Ford's internal polling being way off or we have Ipsos-Reid being way off.

If in fact Nanos' numbers turn out to be closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Ipsos-Reid conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark. Meanwhile, Nanos' numbers haven't changed much in the past two months. So, if Ipsos-Reid is closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Nanos conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark.

But they both can't be right. And they all can't be that far off.

Needless to say, I think election day is going to reveal a rat.

Voting Laws Don't Count For Obama

So, it looks like Michelle Obama has stepped in it again.

Bad enough her Marie Antoinette trip to Spain a few months ago and the criticism it brought onto her as somebody above the common folk, now she has to go and break Illinois state voting laws by electioneering within a polling place.

Of course, some people are coming to the defense of this Harvard educated lawyer from Illinois saying that because she's the first lady and is "liked" that she should be cut some slack. Yeah... because you wouldn't expect a lawyer from Illinois who has helped out with her husband's political campaigns to know anything about Illinois law as pertains to political campaigns.

Who are the genius' who think up these excuses? I have some ideas.

But ultimately who really thinks that anybody would go after Michelle Obama for breaking voting laws? After all, we know how well the idea of enforcing voting laws goes with this administration.

Where's that vitriol now Olbermann?

Can we put to rest any doubt at all that Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are complete hypocrites?

Oh, they scream at conservatives commentators who describe a politician as a "whore" and even put the word out there. But when it's an actual politician or his aide -- it has been reported the court transcriber attributed it to J.B. while leftist news organizations are falling in line with saying it was an aide -- calling her a whore, MSNBC has to beep it out of the story.

I doubt we'll hear Olbermann shouting down Jerry Brown over this... no, that would show principle. And Olbermann needs to take anger management courses before he'll show any of that.

(Hat tip to Big Journalism for catching this one.)

I, for one, am having a hard time believing that Jerry Brown himself didn't use the word. If you watch the video from the link above and listen to the audio recording you'll notice that the first time the word "whore" is used, the person's voice is higher pitched and has a little more of a nasal aspect.

But the voice is deeper the second time the word is used and sounds like it is coming from the same person who said, "I am going to use that."

There doesn't seem to be any question that it was Jerry Brown who said, "I am going to use that."

The fallout for this story hasn't even hit yet. But it will be interesting to see who gets in line. We already know that NOW has repeated the hypocritical stance it took with Bill Clinton and has quickly jumped to Brown's side after this.

The level of hypocrisy is simply stunning.

Fortune tellers join the rank of the unemployed

Honestly... who needs a fortune teller to predict the massive political shift in the United States coming this November when you have Gallup?

Yes, folks, it's true. The "summer of recovery" has been such an overwhelming success that US unemployment numbers jumped from 9.3% in August to 10.1%.

I imagine that the Democrats will be inviting Obama out on the campaign trails less and less in the coming weeks. It's not even fun anymore watching the Dems going the way of the Titanic.