Czabe defends the genre

It's not uncommon for "real" professional writers to look down their nose at bloggers. And let's face it -- why wouldn't they? It's not like any of us are getting rich doing this, particularly donkeys like the Vulture who won't put advertising on their blog. Which, when you think about it, explains why this blog is what it is: you get quality commensurate with the renumeration received by the service provider. Garbage in, garbage out.

Recently a "really important" writer appeared on one of the blathering heads shows and, apparently, really lit up bloggers, particularly sports blog deadspin.com. Steve Czaban leaps to the defense of bloggers everywhere.

On the panel, Buzz attacked Deadspin creator Will Leich as if he were responsible for introducing the journalistic equivalent of the ebola virus to the sports world.

Short version of his take: Blogs are evil.

Of course we are. Go ahead, bash away.

While some bloggers think their s*** doesn’t stink, I believe most are firmly aware of where they reside in the media universe.

Any dink can start a blog, and write his fingers to the bone. It doesn’t mean it’ll be any good, or widely read. But if it is, it can gain a following.

And most bloggers, I believe, yearn to someday NOT be bloggers. I think most would love to write for magazines, write books, write screen plays, or for anybody who pays them more money!

In essence, blogs are the batting cage of writing. You get in there, you take your hacks, you try to get better. But you get the reps. You work the writing muscle. You try things out. You develop your thought process. You use all the media of the world wide web to make your point.

No, Buzz. It’s not an at-bat in the 9th inning of the World Series, you pompous ass. Bloggers don’t get that chance. You do. And someday, a guy who started as a blogger will outsell your cranky ass on the NY Times bestseller list.

Get over it.

Could we have a round of polite golf applause for Mr. Czaban, please? Nicely done, Czabe.

Climate change fraud/climate change frauds

There are two thing about the current man-made global warming scam that really make me crazy. One of them is the way people take the "science" on faith without bothering to see if there is any evidence against the "consensus" view. The other is the way the environmental evangelists tell the rest of us how we should live while they themselves live their lives to a completely different standard.

Part I: the "scamintists"

Here is yet another example of scientists playing fast and loose with the facts.

Methodology used by NASA to estimate rates of climate change are resulting in dramatic shifts in previously published historical temperature data, causing figures for estimated global surface temperature prior to 1970 to now be lower and figures since 1970 to now be higher – and appearing to provide evidence for those who say the Earth is warming.

John Goetz, writing last month in the science blog Climate Audit, analyzed the way NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates estimated global surface temperatures and showed that the addition of new, contemporary data could "have a ripple effect all the way back to the beginning of a [weather] station's history."

Goetz found 32 different versions of published global annual averages going back to Sept. 24, 2005, that showed the published figures – figures used as a baseline to demonstrate change through time – changing hundreds of times.

"On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years," he wrote. "The largest single jump was 0.27 °C. This occurred between the Oct. 13, 2006 and Jan. 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43 °C to +0.70 °C, a change of nearly 68 percent."

Temperature anomalies – differences between the average measured global air temperature and some long-term mean – are primary data for studies of climate change.

Uh-huh. Adjust the real temperatures pre-1970 downwards, and the real temperatures post-1970 upwards. And we wonder why there is so much "evidence" of warming.

But wait! There's more to chew on here. Surely you remember the famous 1990's era "hockey stick" graph showing the catastrophic warming we will face soon. It is the Holy Grail of the climate change cultists, even today, even after it was proved to be a complete fraud.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

In other words, you could feed this program the price list from Wendy's and it would generate a hockey stick.

Part II: the false prophets and evangelists (do as I say, not as I do)

Al Gorebells is on the receiving end of most of my venom on this count (Mr. 20,000 square foot house with an energy bill larger than my mortgage payment). But these asshats are just as deserving of derision.

Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?

If so, then the melting of the polar ice caps just moved a step closer, following calls by Trudie Styler, a leading celebrity ecological hypocrite - call them hippy-crites for short - for the general public to eat more locally grown vegetables.

Campaigning against food miles might seem an unlikely cause for Styler, given that a tribunal last year heard how she ordered her personal chef to travel over 100 miles to make a bowl of pasta for her youngest child and has sold olive oil and honey from her Tuscan estate, Il Palagio, 1,000 or so miles away, in Harrods in London.
------
The couple's carbon footprint, the impertinent ink-stained wretch pointed out, has been estimated at 30 times greater than the average Briton's. How did Styler and Sting - who have seven homes - square that with their environmental crusading?

Styler conceded that as Sting "has a 750-person crew to bring around the world, it is a difficult challenge".
------
"I would like to think that we both work pretty hard for the rights of indigenous people and for the rights of conservation of the Amazon rainforest, but we do need to get around," she said.

Oh, don't worry - Sting and his obviously retarded wife are hardly the only ones guilty of such self-importance and "hippy-cracy". Read the article and see for yourself. John Revolting. Chris (Mr. Gwyneth Paltrow) Martin of Coldplay. Madonna. Leonardo DiCaprio. Brangelina. And, my personal favorite, Barbra Streisand.

See, they're "persons", and we're just "people", so it's okay that they jet around the globe, wasting energy and natural resources, all the while berating the "people" for not buying in to their "vision" of environmental utopia - a utopia where, I might add, our lives are diminished while they get to do whatever they want.

Is it any wonder I get so bent by the "greens" and all they represent? Frauds. Hypocrites. Elitists. And those are their good points.

Team Donkey -- the stretch run

You may have noticed that I've paid scant attention to the presidential campaigns lately. Oh, sure, I beat on the "Reverend" Wright a little for sabotaging Obama's chances. But that's pretty much it. My heart just hasn't been in it.

But, for those of you who are still interested, here is a widget for determining just how many delegates the Democrat candidates must win and what percentage of the Super Delegates they'll need in order to clinch the nomination.

My money is on The Beast. I think Obama's just about done.

Wiener of the Week

This week's WotW is the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. And what a week he's had.

First there was all of the fallout from his "God Damn America" sermon. Then he made an appearance at the National Press Club in DC where he further ingratiated himself to one and all. Finally, Barack {don't say his middle name or you're a racist} Obama, under enormous pressure, threw "Reverend" Wright under the bus and severed all ties to him.

Why would the "Reverend" Wright do this? Doesn't he want {DSHMNOYAR} to win? The correct answer, sadly, is no, he does NOT want him to win. Vulture! How can you say that? Just look at the facts, ma'am.

Let's start with an analogy. The Department of Making Things Better is formed by an act of Congress. Their job is to "make things better". At first they have a lot of success; things start to "get better". But as things "get better", the Department's budget is reduced, their prominence is diminished, and their media coverage dwindles. So...no surprise here...the next fiscal year, things DON'T "get better" -- they "get worse". Congress calls hearings. The Department says things got worse because of the budget cuts. Congress reinstates their previous budget number. But now, the Department heads are smarter than before -- they're still going to try to "make things better", just not very hard. And when things DO start to "get better" too fast, they'll publish some study or other to assure that things don't look as good as they really are. After all, rule #1 for any bureaucracy is self-preservation.

Rule #1 also applies to availability entrepreneurs. There is a cottage industry in this country I like to call the Department of Racial Grievances. It is informally headed by the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson (the king of the shakedown artists) and the "Reverend" Al "I'll shut down New York!" Sharpton. Folks like the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright don't figure as prominently as the other "Reverends", but they, too, depend on the continuing perception of racial disharmony in order to make their daily bread. If {DSHMNOYAR} were to be elected president, these "Reverends" would suffer the experience of the Department of Making Things Better -- loss of prestige, loss of funding, loss of shakedown opportunities.

Why Vulture! That's so cynical! Yeah? So show me the logical error. Show me where I'm wrong. That's what I thought.

For proving once again that he'd rather see his people fail than see his "mission" and prestige threatened, "Reverend" Wright - you're the Wiener of the Week.

Wiener of the Month

The WotM for April is quite the no-brainer. Who else could it be but the Stoßtruppen from Texas?

Wrong.

THIS nanny-state worshiping asshat is the Wiener of the Month.

Get a load (and I do mean a load) of this.

Lawyers for the FLDS members – who reside not only at YFZ but also at compounds located in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada -- have been arguing in the press that the entry and removal of the children constituted a "massive" violation of due process. Others have argued that the authorities' actions represent the unfair targeting of one religion.

Each of these arguments is singularly misguided.

Exqueeze me? Misguided? Would you care to explain how the state-sanctioned kidnapping of 400+ children on the flimsiest of leads is acceptable? Oh, she would LOVE to explain it!

Whether or Not the Caller Was Legitimate, the Important Point is the Lack of Any Government Misconduct and the Serious Evidence of Crimes to Children

Yeah....that would explain the hundreds of indictments that have been....what do you mean, there haven't been any indictments? I'm S-O-O-O confused. /sarcasm

A Sect In Deep Denial of Its Crimes Cannot Be Trusted with Its Children

Are you shitting me? So now it's Law Enforcement's job to judge, on the spot and without any sort of judicial or jury review, not only whether a crime has been committed, but also whether there are delusional people among those being raided, which is immediate grounds for kidnapping their children? Lady, put down the crack pipe!

This raid was about child abuse, and as I explain above, it is not really any different than authorities entering a drug den or a private home where there are credible accounts of abuse. The child protective services universe is sufficiently stable by now that whoever is sexually abusing a child can be made to stop. It is the best interest of the child that determines government action.

"It is the best interest of the child that determines government action." That actually scares me. I exaggerate not.

Okay, were this just some random donkey spouting inanities, I could perhaps overlook it -- after all, you don't see me going off on the contributors to The Daily Kos, do you? But this ISN'T some random asshat - this is a Princeton University law professor!

Marci Hamilton: for your gross ignorance of the United States Constitution and your complete lack of understanding of basic common-sense law, you are the Wiener of the Month for April!

Performance-enhancing drugs

When you see the words "performance-enhancing drugs", what do you think of? Professional athletes, of course. Uh...according to the British journal Nature you might want to rethink that stereotype.

Twenty percent of scientists admit to using performance-enhancing prescription drugs for non-medical reasons, according to a survey released Wednesday by Nature, Britain's top science journal.

The overwhelming majority of these med-taking brainiacs said they indulged in order to "improve concentration," and 60 percent said they did so on a daily or weekly basis.

Scientists. I should have known.

Over 1,400 scientists responded to the survey. Over one third of them said they would administer the drugs to their children "if they knew other kids at school were also taking them." Unbelievable.

The performance-enhancing drugs most commonly utilized by professional athlete consist of substances (steroids, human growth hormone) that assist in "bounce back" -- the time needed to recuperate from heavy weight lifting or other exertion. When "bounce back" time is reduced, the athlete is able to work out more frequently and thus improve their strength, speed, and endurance more rapidly as well. In other words, these athletes are "healing" themselves so that they can perform at peak efficiency.

And what of the scientists?

The survey focused on three drugs widely available by prescription or via the Internet.

Ritalin, a trade name for methylphenidate, is a stimulant normally used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, especially in children. Modafinil -- marketed at Provigil -- is prescribed to treat sleep disorders, but is also effective against general fatigue and jet lag.
------
The third class of drugs included in the survey was beta blockers, prescribed for cardiac arrhythmia and popular among performers due to its anti-anxiety effect.

Uh-huh. Speed and anti-anxiety drugs. And they feel absolutely no remorse about abusing them, either.

In the survey, 80 percent of all the scientists -- even those who did not use these drugs -- defended the right of "healthy humans" to take them as work boosters, and more than half said their use should not be restricted, even for university entrance exams.

The next time you hear some preachy droning head prattling on about how awful it is that professional athletes are using performance-enhancing drugs, remember this: none of us are pure on this count. My coffee and energy drinks, your tea, his speed, her Valium. We're all looking for an edge. And we all take shortcuts.

But doesn't it make you wonder what other shortcuts these scientists are taking?