The NYTimes fact-checks a new MoveOn/AFSCME ad:
ON THE SCREEN A young, blonde mother speaks directly to the camera as she sits on a living room couch, holding on her lap a baby boy dressed in overalls.
THE SCRIPT The woman says, “Hi, John McCain; this is Alex. He’s my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog — that, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because, if you were, you can’t have him.”
The Times duly notes that McCain was contemplating a peace-time occupation similar to the extended presence of USA troops in Germany or South Korea and adds this:
Because advertisement fact-checking reports like this one are never viewed as widely as the spots themselves, a good many people may take from this advertisement that Mr. McCain is supporting 100 years of an overwhelmingly unpopular war.
That's the hope, anyway.
I hope the kid grows up to be a General in our all volunteer Army. It would serve that woman right.
Posted by: Jane | June 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Anyway, once her kid is an adult he can make up his own mind (or her own mind) and tell the mother to go to hell.
Posted by: s gerber | June 19, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Don't be misled by the name, lady: the 3rd Infantry Division is not made up of infants.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | June 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
McCain needs his own StopTheSmears task force. They should issue a press release.
"NYT reports that Obama supporters lied"
After fact checking a $500,000 ad by Obama Campaign supporters, the Times concluded that the ad intended to mislead people into believing that John McCain has said he supported 100 years of war in Iraq.
Posted by: MikeS | June 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Alex's mother can relax. Somehow, I don't think she will inspire in young Alex the love of country that leads to service in our all-volunteer force.
Posted by: GnuCarSmell | June 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Imagine my surprise that it was produced by Fenton. I'm curious though of the buy in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio with Great Lakes and Wright-Patterson.
Also, the ad is creepy, and with greater exposure could end up backfiring.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Posted by: cathyf | June 19, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Seems to have escaped their notice that McCain is nearly 72.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Moveon obviously has a stake in withdrawal from Iraq,somebody might have a nice little earner but the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees,surely the child is too young to be a member?
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Her kid will likely be driving an Iraqi Motor Works sports car when he grows up, our own auto manufacturers having long been nationalized out of existence during Obama's tenure.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 01:19 PM
AFSCME is determined to do away with secret elections re union representation. They need a Dem president to get this. If they get it every municipality and state govt will be putty in their hands.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 01:28 PM
It is interesting how the Left uses children in their political ads. Not children's issues, but child actors. Anyways, the mother could no more keep her child out of Iraq when he's 18 then she could send him there. It is interesting how the Left thinks our soldiers are children.
Posted by: Richard Palmer | June 19, 2008 at 02:28 PM
thats interesting, i just saw the newsclip of the kid asking mccain the question and thats the impression i got. as for like korea or germany. can mccain or any of you patriotic americans tell me more or less when THE WAR will end and when we can have our troops stationed there where they can walk freely as they do in germany andkorea without fear of getting shot or blown apart. when mccain can be specific about this then i will reconsider this silly claim that his mnouth said one thing and his mind meant another.
Posted by: richard cadena | June 19, 2008 at 02:42 PM
Sure, if Iraq were peaceful we could keep troops there for a hundred years. And if we could train them to breathe water we could keep them on the bottom of the ocean for a hundred years. McCain's got about the same chance for either one happening.
Posted by: Ted | June 19, 2008 at 02:48 PM
Let's also not forget that by the time Alex is 18, not only will McCain be long out of office, so will his successor, even if they each serve two terms.
Posted by: David Casper | June 19, 2008 at 02:50 PM
richard:
Can any of the patriotic Obama supporters tell us why it is that they have such a hair up their ass to surrender? I think that if Bush had been a Democrat people like Obama would have supported the war. They would have been happy to liberate the people of Iraq. But Bush is a Republican and politics is way more important than country.
BTW, we have troops in dozens of countries around the world, does Obama have plans to bring them home to their families any time soon?
Posted by: Schornick | June 19, 2008 at 02:51 PM
We must have been linked to some whack job site...In three critical respects the conventional wisdom on Iraq has been proven wrong. History will judge this president kindly because on the one big thing he was entrusted to handle--our defense--he was absolutely right.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/12441
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Okinawa, Germany, Italy, Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, Korea, just to name a few of the countries where we currently have troops, and who cares? No one. That is of course McCain's point. People are either dishonest or stupid if they say they can not understand what he is getting at.
Posted by: Schornick | June 19, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Richard, wars do not have predefined durations. You may be thinking of war movies.
Posted by: bgates | June 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM
Quote: "as for like korea or germany. can mccain or any of you patriotic americans tell me more or less when THE WAR will end and when we can have our troops stationed there where they can walk freely as they do in germany andkorea without fear of getting shot or blown apart."
Richard, it's pretty much that way now. Not entirely and not everywhere in Iraq, but probably within a year or so. Unless Barry Hussein O is elected.
Posted by: GTL | June 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM
If I were on the McCain staff I would have just had to retort with "The American Military have no use for Mama's boys. Thanks for thinking of us".
Posted by: Chuck | June 19, 2008 at 02:58 PM
The way things are going, let's hope this woman's son has an America worth growing up in.
Posted by: Doc99 | June 19, 2008 at 03:18 PM
"It is interesting how the Left uses children in their political ads. Not children's issues, but child actors."
So the kid is more at risk of ending on the meat rack in Hollywood.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 03:22 PM
"It is interesting how the Left thinks our soldiers are children."
Except when they are portrayed as psychopathic killers.
Or when they are acquitted, at which point they become invisible.
Posted by: GnuCarSmell | June 19, 2008 at 03:23 PM
If I were on the McCain staff I would have just had to retort with "The American Military have no use for Mama's boys. Thanks for thinking of us".
Posted by: Chuck | June 19, 2008 at 03:29 PM
What? You mean we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea after all these years?
It's a QUAGMIRE!
Posted by: jblog | June 19, 2008 at 03:35 PM
What war is Times claiming is "overwhelmingly unpopular"? The one in 2004-05, or the one we actually have right now? And by "overwhelmingly unpopular" do they mean "among journalists" or "among soldiers"? When you ask "is the war being handled well?", do you have a clue whether the "no" answer you get means "we should pull all those dear children out and let the Iranians and Iraqis kill each other", or does it mean "stop screwing around, hit em harder!" ?
I mean, if I pulled my stats and polls from 2004, I could prove that Barry O is barely on the political landscape at all.
Posted by: Virginian | June 19, 2008 at 03:38 PM
BTW, we have troops in dozens of countries around the world, does Obama have plans to bring them home to their families any time soon?
Of course not. They'll be too busy invading Sudan, Burma, Haiti (again), and Congo in order to accomplish the vital national security interest of making the Left look like they care about the world's suffering.
Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood | June 19, 2008 at 03:41 PM
I hope the kid grows up to be a General in our all volunteer Army. It would serve that woman right.
When my son was in 1st grade, it came to my attention that he was lagging behind and I found out that the teacher was sending the boys out of the room at the beginning of class and making them stand with their nose to the wall, while she taught only the girls. A couple of other mothers contacted me and together we raised holy hell.
It came out in one highly vocal exchange that she hated little boys, couldn't stand they way they behaved compared to the "nice little girls."
We demanded she be fired. They let her stay until the end of the school year. During that time she became pregnant. What goes around, comes around ... she was pregnant with twin boys.
Posted by: Sara | June 19, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Darn
Posted by: Sara | June 19, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Posted by: Sara | June 19, 2008 at 03:44 PM
Barrack Obama's side never tackles or acknowledges the core problem. Unlike Korea/Germany... the region's radicals have a religious belief that infidels in thier homeland is an insult to thier god. So, theoretically, if we are there for 100 years, that radical group will continue to fight, because they choose to believe such idiocy.
Which illustrates the problem. Not our presence. Not the technological, sociological and cultural progress we represent. It shines a bright spotlight for the entire world to see, that THIER stone age belief system encourages all manner of barbaric and backward practices.
Recent events give us hope that the radical groups wont be around or have any influence in 10 years, let alone 100 years.
My guess, as to why today's left ingores the nature of the enemy, because doing so would mean uniting with hated enemies on our own shores behind the common cause of individual rights, liberty, and such... forcing them to cast aside thier real quest, chasing pet projects that make them feel good, and require little discipline and sacrifice.
Posted by: jay | June 19, 2008 at 03:49 PM
Mars vs Hollywood-
I'm not so sure about this. Looking at the reworked Winnie the Pooh approved Hug-A-Thug and Make-A-Terrorist-Wish team I'm sure invasions or any sort of unplesantness will be avoided.
Looking over the list: Susan Rice and Maddy Albright could give him pointers on how to cover up and dissemble about genocide (Rwanda). Perry could give him pointers on how to avoid conflicts even when it makes US soliders sitting ducks (Khobar Towers and the related Iraq NFZ's). Christopher can give him pointers on how to sit down with dictators, get worthless promises, and go and sit down with them again (essentially what Christoper got in his 20 odd visits to Assad's Syria during his tenure).
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Twenty visits to Syria? What, was he expecting to hear something new?
======================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Ugh. It's that type of woman who makes me so ashamed of my gender; I'll wager she beats up her boyfriend.
Posted by: syn | June 19, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Kim,
He became addicted to the taste of Assad's boot polish.
Rich,
Not even China's cut (on top of India's) on top Of Abdullah's promise to pump could move oil prices more than about 4%. That is one thick skinned bubble.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 19, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Cindy Sheehan: The Early Years
Posted by: Jim Treacher | June 19, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Hey lady, don't worry about it.
In the event that your little Snowflake ends up in the military and deployed overseas serving our country during wartime, it's far more likely given the track record since the start of the previous century that it's going to be at the behest of one of your beloved Donk presidents-- like maybe President Chelsea C. Mezvinsky.
Posted by: Dave | June 19, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Rick-
Not even China's cut (on top of India's) on top Of Abdullah's promise to pump could move oil prices more than about 4%. That is one thick skinned bubble.
I noticed that today. Saw a news item about how people are driving less too, and my back of the envelope calculation is that US demand reduction alone is 150k bbl/day. We'll see, the contract expires tomorrow and the Jeddah conference is this weekend, so some might try to brave it out and see if KSA can actually deliver.
The other bit of news is that Iraq is gearing up for oil infrastructure contracts and since Maliki has cleared out Basra and violence overall is getting tamped down wouldn't be surprised of an upside surprise in Iraqi production data.
Posted by: RichatUF | June 19, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Rick, I half wonder if pending climate news may be helping to keep the price of oil up. There is a news conference/discussion by three heavy hitter meteorologists, Harry van Loon, Roland Madden, and William Gray, at 3:00 PM, June 26th at New York's Marriott Marquis which promises news bearing on the energy market. They claim to have noted weather pattern changes in the last month in the Pacific that have not been seen for 70 years.
================================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Funny, I'm more worried about the baby who pukes-up after making a stock trade.
Posted by: edh | June 19, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Traffic is down considerably in the Dist of Columbia--people seem to be using public transportation or car pooling. (Interestingly real estate prices in DC went up over 3% this year, down about that same amount in the near suburbs and down very much (the biggest frop in the nation) in the far suburbs,Part of this may have to do with the fact that those far suburbs contained the largest no. of subprime mortgages, but part undoubtedly id the higher commuting cost.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 04:53 PM
How about a counter-ad with the kid wearing red "moveon.org" pajamas and mama saying,
"Hi, America; this is Alex. He’s my first. His talents include spitting. Are you counting on him? Because if I can help it, he will never, ever pick up a gun in defense of his country.”
Behind her should be one of those Che Guevara posters.
Posted by: t | June 19, 2008 at 05:34 PM
"Hi, America; this is Alex. He’s my first. I send him off to a nanny every day and hire a sitter when he gets in the way of my busy schedule of social activism and riot promotion.
He's going to grow up a maladjusted Ritalim addict because I just can't be bothered with spending any time with him. He'll probably wet his pants until he is eleven because I don't let him actually be a boy.
I let him watch a lot of HBO because they can help teach him how rotten and miserable everything about life is.
I didn't really want him anyway, but that rat bastard Chimpy McHitlerburton made abortion legal. At least that's what Cameron Diaz told me.
By the say McSame, you can't have him because I'm currently using him.
And if anyone knows who his daddy is, my child support lawyer's number is at the bottom of the screen. I could sure use the money for some kind bud and some pithy bumper stickers for my '78 Volvo wagon."
Posted by: Soylent Red | June 19, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Oh I forgot the tagline...
"Do you want these people running our country. If so, vote Obama."
Posted by: Soylent Red | June 19, 2008 at 06:06 PM
"Somehow, I don't think she will inspire in young Alex the love of country that leads to service in our all-volunteer force."
You never know. I have a friend who is a dyed in the wool academic leftist. He is a professor at an Ivy League university who writes regularly for the NY Review. His son went to a college that had never had an ROTC. When he graduated about five years ago, he joined the Corps.
Posted by: Fat Man | June 19, 2008 at 06:15 PM
"They claim to have noted weather pattern changes in the last month in the Pacific that have not been seen for 70 years."
Yes! Yes! But is it short or Sou'Westers.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 06:30 PM
I knew a kid extremely bright,his mother,a social worker, had LIBERAL written through her like a stick of rock.She let him smoke dope,but broke all the guns off his toy soldiers,he became a drop out dope head.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 06:33 PM
Well, that's what I call irony-y,PUK.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 06:43 PM
"Rick, I half wonder if pending climate news may be helping to keep the price of oil up. There is a news conference/discussion by three heavy hitter meteorologists, Harry van Loon, Roland Madden, and William Gray, at 3:00 PM, June 26th at New York's Marriott Marquis which promises news bearing on the energy market. They claim to have noted weather pattern changes in the last month in the Pacific that have not been seen for 70 years.
"
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. 70 years ago it was 1938. We had no satellites or any other way of looking or measuring weather patterns in the Pacific. You saw what you saw from either the deck of a boat or within a few miles of the coast in a biplane(war machines were not just flying around looking at weather patterns). What a bunch of loons. The climate change cult gets more laughable by the minute.
Posted by: george | June 19, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Clarice,
Yes,he told me once that his "Dealer was a really nice guy". I explained he probably was until he failed to pay him,at which point he could have fun having the plaster cast signed.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 07:25 PM
Ever notice how much trouble The Reality Based Community has with telling the truth?
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2008 at 07:30 PM
The young people in your neighborhood sound like a barrel of fun, PUK. First the Damienettes,now this guy.
Posted by: clarice | June 19, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Yesterday an alarmist MMGW cultist was inferring that supposed climate change is causing more severe earthquakes over some irrelevent minute period(I think 100 years). A suspected(unproven) .2 degree change in weather causing earthquakes over a century, when the weather can natrually change 40 degrees over the period of one day... cripes.
Posted by: george | June 19, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Yes Clarice,and they took away our guns.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 19, 2008 at 08:01 PM
GNu,
"the love of country that leads to service in our all-volunteer force."
By that logic, people who aren't in the all-volunteer force don't love their country.
Posted by: Sanskritg | June 19, 2008 at 08:01 PM
GNu,
"the love of country that leads to service in our all-volunteer force."
By that logic, people who aren't in the all-volunteer force don't love their country.
Posted by: Sanskritg | June 19, 2008 at 08:01 PM
There is a news conference/discussion by three heavy hitter meteorologists, Harry van Loon, Roland Madden, and William Gray
Did some digging and found this blurb on the conference. Since it seems to give AGWr's a bone to gnaw on, I figured, well maybe they discovered summer which happened last year about this time, and I'm pretty sure the 69 summers before that too.
So, I did some more digging. Loon was published in 1998 in various science maganzines regarding sunspot-to-warming connections, specifically the high solar activity to the strong El Nino at that time.
This blurb seems like a funny teaser for the warmers, when the current low-to-no sunspot activity is likely to mean no El Nino, if not an extended La Nina.
I don't necessarily know where these guys stand on the warming nonsense, though a google linking their names and Soros turned up nothing - which is a good sign.
There are many indications that we may be heading for a minimum - and maybe that's what they plan to announce - but that sure is a funny prospectus they issued for their talk.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Then again, reading and re-reading that blurb about their upcoming announcement, which seems to me to be opposite in all cases what science seems to be gravitating to right now, maybe Soros McLelland'd (a new verb) these guys just in time for the election. Just to keep AGW carp in the forefront for a few more months.
kim, are you getting any hints?
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 08:28 PM
I hope little Alex has a great life. I like to see him grow up healthy and get a cushy job in one of the fabulous landmark high rise office buildings that we have around the country.
Posted by: MikeS | June 19, 2008 at 08:31 PM
Just like MoveOn. Woman apparently gets to control her son's life until her death. Hey, what do you know, that sounds exactly like their philosophy of government!
Posted by: seguin | June 19, 2008 at 08:36 PM
George, that earthquake/global warming thing is a great joke. Dr. Tom Chalko is a hoot, try googling him. As of this afternoon, MSNBC still had his article up, but the rest of the news agencies had figured out what a crackpot he is.
The gullibility of MSM about one of their hobby horses.
Bill, I don't know, but I think those three meteorologists are going to tell the world that it is cooling impressively and for awhile. That's a hunch more than a hint, but I'm a pretty strong true believer that we are cooling for at least 30 years, longer if the sun hibernates.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 08:47 PM
george, in comment #33 in the 'More on Hurricanes' thread at climateaudit.org there is a link to a wonderful interview with Harry van Loon about the early days of oceanic meteorology. You are right, they didn't have a lot of instruments or computers, but it is surprising what they could do with variable reports from ships.
====================================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Bill in AZ:
I don't necessarily know where these guys stand on the warming nonsense
William Gray is a skeptic, to say the least.
My first ever "from a reader" on the Corner.
Gray thinks the AGW scientists are nucking futs.
Gray's an adherent of Kimianity.
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2008 at 08:54 PM
From the 2006 article linked in that Corner post:
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2008 at 08:56 PM
Well, if they wanted to get every warmist in the world to crawl out of the woodwork and listen, their little blurb would do it. So much promise! Warmer than normal July/August - woohoo! El Nino - woohoo! Hurricanes! maybe another Katrina or 3 - woohoo! Warm winter - GloBull Warming! woohoo!
If they talk about the coming minimum instead, lib heads will explode the world over - woohoo!
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 08:59 PM
Thanks hit - I do recall now reading that about Gray, but couldn't dig it up right off the bat. The stuff I did find from Harry van Loon gave me some hope.
I have a feeling this will be fun to see...
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 09:03 PM
Yeah, they are teasing. Probably they are going to declare milder, warmer, temperatures for the rest of the year, and then the big cool down.
==========================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:04 PM
William Gray, for one, is definently an anti-AGW skeptic.
**************
Cindy Sheehan: The early years. That cracked me up.
Posted by: David | June 19, 2008 at 09:06 PM
kim:
Probably they are going to declare milder, warmer, temperatures for the rest of the year
They might say that we will warm in July and August, with cooling coming some time in September and October and then accelerating cooling beginning sometime in November, bottoming out sometime in January or February.
With an inverted scenario in the southern hemisphere.
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2008 at 09:13 PM
H&R you were right two years ago that the alarmists were anxious to get carbon encumbering schemes going, but I don't think they were that concerned that the globe would really start cooling. That realization has hit home only in the last six months or so, and the level of desperation in the rhetoric of the true believers is getting hysterical. In this day of cooling oceans and atmosphere, falling sea levels, and accumulating ice, their carbon paradigm is collapsing.
Here's a shocker. Both the graph and a real URL from kim.
icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
==============================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:16 PM
er, uh, MSL on the left of the graph is mean sea level. It has started falling this year. Calling Al Gore, fly away home, your house is on fire.
===========================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Erl Happ had a very wet and cool summer on the west coast of Australia. I am kind of expecting something similar here this summer. It has already been one of the coolest spring/summers I have ever experienced here in AZ (50+ years), with some very unusual rains. His rains didn't really kick in until later in his summer. Our summer "monsoons" start in a couple weeks here, and I think it may be very interesting.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Erl Happ may end up with a Nobel Prize. He characterizes the heat engine that is the earth as well as anyone.
The trick is that the sun doesn't vary enough from max energy output to min energy output to account for the wider swings in climate. Many of us believe that the sun still regulates the climate, but the exact mechanism is still undetermined. It is probably very complex, but likely involves albedo, and clouds. OK, now you get my infamous couplet;
I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
======================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Ho, Ho! The crackpot earthquake story is getting interestinger and interestinger. Apparently CBS put it up attributing it to the AP, but after they took it down it has been discovered that there is no record of it being an AP story, and the two sides are now blaming each other. This is the one that ran briefly on Drudge yesterday. I could still find it on MSNBC this afternoon, but haven't checked lately.
Anthony Watts at his blog 'Watts Up With That' has the story, and it is pretty amusing.
===========================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:42 PM
Anthony's pretty funny. He's says this story makes the Mapes forgeries look like a peer-reviewed article in a science journal.
===============================
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2008 at 09:43 PM
Richard,
There are places in northern Iraq where you can walk around freely without body armor or your weapon(s). Has been that way in some towns since late 2006. But hey, don't let the truth ruin your dream of making Iraq another View Nam by doing a cut & run routine.
Posted by: SgtRon | June 19, 2008 at 09:57 PM
Clarice:
History will judge this president kindly because on the one big thing he was entrusted to handle--our defense--he was absolutely right.
Dems in congress seem to agree.
At least, that is, they keep giving the president what he wants in funding bills. Over and over again.
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2008 at 09:59 PM
At this point we don't need even one storm anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico; we don't need one any around the Atlantic Coast either. But it's likely to be hotter than usual, and that will probably generate more storms; hopefully the winds will shear off
the circulation, like they did last year.
The name "Alex" reminded me of the most famous rebel of hippy parents; although he was a fictional character; Alex P. Keaton.
He did typify a generation, that grew up in rebellion to their antiwar, anticapitalist
parents. That seems not to be the public face of this generation; then again, alot of
working class boomers did vote for Nixon,
instead of McGovern, the youth candidate.
The MoveOn Volvo/IKEA demographic does show it's preening arrogance; since they are not likely to volunteer, although ironically, they would be the most likely to be harmed
by Islamists because of their beliefs and their lifestyle. San Francisco, LA, NYC, (it's happened twice already)would be the
most likely targets of the next attack. Of course voting for Obama would likely be the
quickest way to encourage such an attack; given his advisors proclivities toward security services, the military and the attitudes of the enemy.
Posted by: narciso | June 19, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Actually, we do need a storm on the Atlantic coast.
And even here further inland, with the drought last year -- and the dearth of rain in the last month, we need a tropical system to dump a sizable amount of rain...
Posted by: hit and run | June 19, 2008 at 11:40 PM
The trick is that the sun doesn't vary enough from max energy output to min energy output
err... by which measurement... and therein lies the problem I have with most of the "solar science". They measure one tiny microfraction of the entire solar/earth equation, and come to a nonsensical conclusion that is "established science". Erl, at least, looks at dozens, maybe hundreds, of other factors that can significantly amplify or dampen that alleged 0.1% variance.
0.1% variance - even that is silly on its face. There are so many simple things that belie that notion.
Satellite phone satellites: So many dropped in their orbit or became dysfunctional due to unprecedented solar winds in the last few years that my sat phone only gives me 10 minutes per hour of service anymore - and during an emergency I have to figure out which 10 minutes.
Skin cancer was the topic of the day every day for several years while we were under intense solar output. Now you hardly hear a mention of it, other than those who are still dealing with it from the period of intense solar activity.
And now the sun has shut down for a while and we're cooling - significantly. 0.1% variance? right....
There are so many other factors that could possibly have an influence, not to mention all of Erl's earthbound factors - gravity, magnetic influence, planetary influence, that TSI (total solar index) seems insignificant. Just because the influencing factors haven't been identified doesn't mean they don't exist.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | June 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
bgates:
"war movies" LOL. Glad you're back.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 20, 2008 at 12:08 AM
OMG she is so right! I didn't think about it but McCain probably WOULD send her son to Iraq during his 5th term.
Posted by: jvon | June 20, 2008 at 05:05 AM
Yes, Bill, I too am convinced that the sun runs the climate, but just how remains mysterious. Lots of brainpower working on it. Svensmark's cosmic rays are certainly a candidate high on the list. I'm pretty sure it's going to end up variable reflectivity, eg, clouds.
======================================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Little alex is so lucky to have a smotherMother. He won't be able to join the military when he's 18 because they don't change diapers there.
Posted by: bandit | June 20, 2008 at 08:15 AM
If the Dems have their way he'll be drafted at nineteen and taught to shit hygienically by his drill sergeant.
================================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 09:11 AM
O.K.
So if we're cooling, will the answer be to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 20, 2008 at 09:19 AM
I've argued 'til I'm blue in the face, that if we are cooling long term, then the slight amount of warming effect and the large fertilizing effect of carbon dioxide will keep many people on the margin from freezing and starving to death. A dramatic 50 year cooldown will be apocalyptic; even a 5% die-off of the human race is 350,000,000 human souls.
Now, I think we are headed for 30 years of mild cooling from the flipped PDO. If the sun continues on the course it seems set on, and a new Grand Minimum is ahead, then we may see 50-70 years of dramatically colder climate. Carbon encumbering is exactly the wrong thing to do at this time, until we have a little better idea of what is ahead.
With any luck, at the end of this cooling period, we will have figured out the true sensitivity of climate to CO2 and can regulate it if necessary then. In the meantime, alternative energy sources have a chance to develop. Hydrocarbons are going to become to valuable to destroy just for the energy within them; those lovingly created hydrocarbon bonds are more useful as structure to clothe and house the teeming billions.
We are cooling folks, for how long even kim doesn't know.
===========================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 09:34 AM
I dont get it. Why is this ad a lie? McCain did say h e was fine with 100 years in Iraq. There's videotape!
Posted by: jen hutchin | June 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Jen,
I'm sure Obama can explain it to you.
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
if bush was a dem--i would still want our soldiers out of iraq--i never wanted them there in the first place. are u referring to the kurdish area as a place of relative peace where u can go and probably not get shot--kinda a cheap b.s. argument on ur part. cause u are not talking about bagdad where even the iraq gov is secuestered behind 20something ft heigh blast walls cause they know its not a pretty picture outside for them. i know of NO AREA IN THE SUNNI OR SHITE AREAS where a u.s. soldier can walk the streets carefree without his armour and weapon and on his own.-do u--
to say that we are surrendering--a surrender is brought about by ur enemy stating the terms of ur halt to aggressive action and what u will and will not do---ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT OBAMA AND MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WANT IS FOR US TO PULL OUR TROOPS OUT AT OUR OWN TIME SCHEDULE AND UNDER OUR OWN TERMS.---how is this a surrender.
"Richard, wars do not have predefined durations. You may be thinking of war movies."
CORRECT, so if this is the case, then mccain cannot be honest in stating that our troops will be there and not get shot or blown up cause its war. the "bad guys" have not surrendered and for those silly enough to believe that we will kill everyone of "them" whoever/whatever this means--is being at most ignorant or just plain b.sing.
as for this cute "mamas boy" stuff, if u can't contribute anything but hatefilled b.s. again be honest and call it what it is. for u to discount this lady's feelings is to discount countless millions of mothers and fathers who are as patriotic as u claim to be.-- as for the dems invading every country--recent history points to repubs doing the invading of itsy bitsy countrys.
Posted by: richard cadena | June 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
richard
i thnk u hv bn txtng too mch.
Posted by: Pofarmer | June 20, 2008 at 12:26 PM
how is this a surrender
Ask the bones outside Phnom Pen.
Posted by: Barney Frank | June 20, 2008 at 12:32 PM
McCain thinks that our presence in Iraq is going to resemble our presence in Germany or South Korea? Wow. How many years of war in Iraq before the 100 years of non-war in Iraq start?
Posted by: aleks | June 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM
"Ask the bones outside Phnom Pen"
"thnk u hv bn txtng too mch"
sometimes when u have nothing to say--WELL, HOPEFULLY U GET THE PICTURE.!!
Posted by: richard cadena | June 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I dont get it. Why is this ad a lie?
No one's going to take her little darling away from her and force him into front-line duty in Iraq. Put down the Andrew Sullivan kneepads and use logic (unlike Sullivan) and it'll be quite clear.
I'm guessing, though, that you were one of those folks who believed the line about Bush initiating the draft after his re-election, put forth by many of the same folks.
Posted by: RW | June 20, 2008 at 12:51 PM
No one's going to take her little darling away from her and force him into front-line duty in Iraq.
A hundred years at, say, 200 casualties a month is quite a few soldiers. They have to come from somewhere.
Now, maybe McCain thinks we'll get that number down a bit, but until he actually offers a plan to do so, he really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't that long ago that we did have the draft to support an incredibly unpopular war with no strategic significance. Only persons completely blind to history would contend that it couldn't possibly happen again in 100 years. That's a long time.
Posted by: Chet | June 20, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Well Chet, the only people proposing a draft are democrats. Have you asked Obama what he would do? Perhaps he thinks a draft is "fair". I bet you could get behind it then!
BTW, are you willing to give the great Messiah the benefit of the doubt on the war, on Nafta, on Campaign Finance reform? How's that working out for you?
Posted by: Jane | June 20, 2008 at 01:00 PM
John mccain said he would stay in Iraq for maybr one hundred years AFTER we are no longer taking casualties,when will that be?How long will that take?He used germany and japan as examples of american longterm presents,Were there civil wars in either of those countries after the wars were won?He didnt know the difference between shia and sunni and that Iran isnt arming al queda!I didnt think it possible for the republicans to find someone even more stupid than george bush but they did!{exept his voters!}
Posted by: truthynesslover | June 20, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Well, there's the muddle, and now we hear from the puddle.
====================================
Posted by: kim | June 20, 2008 at 01:07 PM