EFFin' Unsound

post by tensor

Dr. Gardner, PhD in BS, hath decided that being a failure in Thermodynamics is not enough, and so moves to eliminate all scientific understanding, by weighing it down with theocratic nonsense:

It also claims that unless something can be sensed and repeated, it cannot be true.

Well, to be considered a valid result, a scientific experiment must be reproducible (e.g. “cold fusion” was not reproducible), or an observation must continue to be valid (every fossil discovered comports with the evolutionary record; no “rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian [period]“). Otherwise, the claimed result is considered an error in observation or analysis.

… the naturalist and materialist is doing something without purpose or meaning.

I’m pretty sure there are atheist astronomers, who wonder at the night sky, without believing there’s an invisible fairy up there. They don’t consider their observations and discoveries to lack purpose or meaning.

But more importantly, I fail to see how people can argue that there is no God from these philosophies.

We don’t. We just say those hypotheses which includes god(s) adds nothing of value to our scientific investigations.

Of course, if your founding doctrine is that there is no God, then of course you are going to conclude that there is no God.

A conclusion which works equally well with the word “no” deleted from each clause.

But that hardly proves anything except that you are adept at circular reasoning.

Correct. (Especially with the word “no” repeatedly removed.)

What has fascinated me are the proposed arguments that, based on naturalist and materialist worldviews, purport to contradict the very assumptions made from the beginning, showing that the original assumptions contradict nature herself.

Examples of which include…?

… the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.

No, observations, hypothesis, data collection, and analysis are. There’s no need for a god.

… fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

It’s wiser to keep your heretical heliocentric model to yourself, if the earth-centered Christians will burn you alive for publishing it, yes.

One accusation hurled towards the Christian scientist is that we explain things as “God wanted it that way”.

That “explanation” doesn’t actually explain anything.

What is “that way”, specifically?
Why does God want it that way?
What other ways could exist and why don’t we see these in nature?

The first and last are valuable scientific questions. The second is an attempt to read the mind of an invisible, disembodied entity which may or may not exist. It’s hard to see any scientific value in that effort.

These are all questions that all scientists should be thinking of always.

Imagine a dialog between Dr. Atheist and Dr. Believer, both biochemical researchers:

A: While we’ve had trouble, so far, finding a vaccine for HIV, or cure for AIDS, I’ve identified an exciting new possibility for one.

B: Our long frustration with either path, combined with my firm (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) beliefs, bring me to the conclusion that the Almighty is punishing homosexuals for violating His laws, and if we run continue to run counter to His Will, we waste our time. We will not examine the possibility of which you speak.

Luckily, Dr. A. can find alternate funding — oops, it involved creating new stem cell lines. Oh well; god’s ways are strange, and his will beneficial. Mostly.

This is, indeed, the very way that entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics was discovered.

Well, it was the discovery that engineers couldn’t raise the efficiencies of their heat engines very far.

Naturalists and materialists don’t want to have this debate with Christian scientists.

Well, mostly because it doesn’t add any value to our scientific work. We can still argue on our spare time!

Instead, they label us as backwards thinking and retarded.

Richard Dawkins has a much larger vocabulary than that, I assure you.

Despite the fact that these ideas, not naturalism and materialism, are the foundation of modern science, they continue to persist because of their war with God.

Luckily, the conflict between pronoun and antecedent continues raging.

post by tensor

True Believer Jonathan can’t stand to hear of any god other than his own, much less talk non-crazy:

This is very interesting.

Mostly because of the pointless frothing it prompts from crazy religious bigots.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

Sounds like a pretty interesting rhetorical start to a serious conference. The U.N. is nothing if not multicultural, and recalling the ancient beliefs of indigenous peoples seems not out of the ordinary for a U.N. conference at some local site. Since Jonathan exists in blissful ignorance of all this, he can only respond as if it’s a threat to his religion.

To those of you who go, “So what? None of the gods are real anyway,” let me help you understand why this is important.

Well, not everyone will say that, but for those of us who did, appealing to religious belief would be usele–

First. Ixchel is not an omnipotent being. Ixchel is the goddess of reason. Doesn’t that mean that reason is not omnipotent?

Frist. FWCon’s blog pretty much exists to prove that some people are entirely immune to reason, facts, common sense, decency, and pretty much any tolerable means of co-existence.

Second, what does Ixchel demand?

Jonathan worships a greedy god, demanding frist-borns and whatnot, so he assumes that any other god must be as bloodthirsty and cretinous.

Are prayers enough to satisfy her?

Frist. They weren’t praying to her, they were invoking her name. An American can invoke Thomas Jefferson when discussing democracy, and no one will seriously believe any ancestor-worship is involved. Second, we can easily understand why Jonathan might view requirements of even non-divine female satisfaction as threatening.

If you put the right gods before you, namely the True and Living God, then you will get, as a reward, life, happiness, prosperity, and even eternal salvation.

But no weaving.

If you put the wrong gods ahead of you, you will only reap destruction, misery, sadness and damnation.

Like the astronomy books burnt by the torches of Christians? Like the astronomers burnt by the torches of Christians? Like the stupid condemnations of evolution and climate change, by Christians who patently understand neither?

I hope this doesn’t sound foreign to anyone who has ever set a goal in their life.

Overthrow of capitalist oppression was fine goal, comrade! What had it to do with god?

Set the right goals, or choose the right set of principles, and you will be happy, rich, successful, etc…

No one who has done this has ever failed.

Choose the wrong set of goals, or the wrong set of principles, and you will find your life full of frustration, anger, sadness, and self-doubt.

Like, say, choosing as your goal reasoning with wingnuts. That’s why we tend to go with mockery here.

Oftentimes, people confuse the God I worship with the god others worship.

That you all call your invisible sky-fairy by the same Nordic monosyllable might have something to do with it.

Let me help you understand what it is I worship.

Money, guns, and authoritarian social structures, if the many voluminous posts at FWCon are any indication. (Although not necessarily in the above-given order.)

First, my God is a God of Love, Reason, Mercy, and Justice.

No creativity or weaving, we get it. That’s Goddess’ work.

He doesn’t take pleasure in seeing people suffer…

Sniffing the scent of burning astronomers, now that’s another matter entirely!

Why do we need to introduce the dead gods of dead civilizations, and to what end would this lead us?

Well, in this case, it lead to the official opening of the conference.

What this climate scientist is doing is abandoning the very religion that lead to the state of science in the modern world.

No, she was making a rhetorical point, based upon local history.

“The state of science in the modern world” was achieved in spite of many efforts of organized Christianity, not “because” of it. (This is like giving the local arsonist sole credit for improved building codes and fire-fighting techniques.)

Without tolerant scientists, who can agree to disagree,

They disagree if the collected evidence is ambiguous. Once enough evidence is collected, a conclusion is reached by consensus, and then altered only when more evidence arrives. This has nothing to do with “tolerant scientists”, and everything to do with respect for facts, reason, logic, and evidence — respect Christianity has historically NOT shown, unless forced to do so.

Jonathan’s “evidence” for “intolerance”, although he won’t say it here, is that the world’s scientific community long ago decided the weight of evidence shows (a) a global trend of climate change (b) due to human activity. The only serious disagreements come from paid flacks of industry, and hard-core deniers.

…and who can confront each other warmly but never become bitter enemies…

Jonathan, on the other hand, is free to call them frauds, corrupt, fools, liars, etc., all based on his utter inability to refute their statements he does not like.

… and without scientists who put their full faith and trust in logic and reason, and trust that God’s creation is a creation of order and reason, we would never have what we have today.

I’m pretty sure we could have overpopulation, and ecological problems of same, without any science at all. (And that Jonathan would tell us all of our resultant suffering and misery was his god’s will.)

post by tensor

Shorter Stefan S.: I have never heard of vocational/technical or general education programs in public schools. Therefore, you must take my comments about schools seriously.

If his high school promised to teach critical thinking, I hope his parents got a full refund.

post by tensor

Shorter FWCon: You cannot make me admit that Republicans are horribly bigoted against my religion.

Regular FWCon:

The presidential frontrunner for 2012 is Mitt Romney.

Not of a party whose aptly-termed “base” hates Mormons with a passion they normally reserve for vegan lesbians.

The Tea Party movement is divided. It should always remain so.

(Insert joke at teabagger expense about “two balls in one sack” here.)

Anyone who can bring the Tea Party together deserves to lead our country.

So, someone who can do what shouldn’t be done deserves to lead? Uh, Okay…

Mitt Romney’s only weakness remains his past.

Ah, so you do admit his upbringing in your church will cause prob–

That includes two important issues: abortion and Romneycare.

And that he’s a member of your church, and therefore “not a real Christian” to the Bible-banging GOP base.

On abortion, people are allowed to have a change of heart.

I’m sure Jonathan will remember this the next time an anti-choice politician gives up that position to get elected.

I doubt many people who truly care about the abortion issue will have a problem with Mitt Romney as president.

Other than that neither side will trust him.

Is it any doubt that he will appoint justices who see Roe vs. Wade as injustice and judicial legislation?

The pro-choice side, including many women, will hold that against him. The anti-choice side won’t believe him.

Let each state decide what program it wants, if any, and let the states be responsible for it. Such a program is inappropriate for the federal government, not just because it is unconstitutional, but because it is not just or right.

The job of a true leader, at the state level, is to do what “is not just or right.” Got it.

Otherwise, every single one of Romney’s positions are squarely in line with the Tea Party.

Stop insulting Mitt Romney. The teabaggers’ only positions are “Obama is a Kenyan usurper,” and “Spellnig iz 4 Kommees.”

Mitt Romney worked behind the scenes on several influential campaigns. Not all of the candidates were Tea Party candidates, but a large number were.

Secretly working for a bunch of losers is a sure way to win.

Romney is able to bridge the gap between the moderate wing of the Republican Party and the Tea Party.

Neither of which matters, because the Bible-bangers will stop him in the primary elections.

On the one hand, he is moneyed and he has close ties, not just personal but political, with those who run the innards of the Republican machine.

Both of which the Bible-bangers will use to defeat him.

On the other hand, he isn’t so loyal to that wing as to eschew the Tea Party, as Karl Rove and others have. He is able to set his own pace and make his own positions.

So, the Bible-bangers will hate him for his religious beliefs, while the teabaggers will hate him for having his own positions. Great path to victory you’ve got going there, Mittens.

I don’t think Romney will be like President Reagan. I don’t think we need a President Reagan at this time.

Iranian-backed militants everywhere have a sad. Maybe they can commiserate with former death-squad leaders from Central America.

What we need is someone who crunches numbers and reorganizes companies for a living.

Because George W. Bush and his fellow titans of American business management have been such a success of late.

We need a grim reaper as president, someone who is willing to cut off his nose and hands to save his country.

Dude, you’ve got to stop staying up late watching those “Saw” flicks.

We need someone like Mitt who isn’t a political opportunist and isn’t trying to build a legacy.

*Snort*. *Giggle*. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

During Reagan’s presidency, he was often at odds with his own administration.

Yes, some of them refused to deal with hostage-takers, while others did not want to arm terrorists, and still others did not want a wreath laid at the graves of SS. Reagan defeated them all!

We need, instead, someone who is able to make people feel good while they lose their jobs…

Instead of Ronald Reagan, we need George Clooney.

…who is able to make cold-hearted calculations and not budge an inch when people come crying about their poor selves.

Yeah, I agree that “compassionate conservatism” was a shitty slogan, but I didn’t mistake it for reality.

We already have a very conservative and very constitutional house as it is.

We all recall how smaller, cleaner government emerged from the last Republican House.

I fully expect that by the time primaries and caucuses are being held, the front runner will be Mitt.

And after the primaries and caucuses, the front-runner will not be a Mormon.

post by tensor

Sadly, Dino Rossi’s days as an elected politician here are finished, although Jim Miller was his usual expert self in not figuring this out without help from his commenters. (In fairness to Jim, it did involve big numbers which reflect reality.)

Now that Mr. Rossi has left the rough and tumble of electoral politics behind him, going back to his career of Galtian hero who creates wealth profiting from the suffering and misery of “the little people”, what will become of our inspirational near-namesake? Long known as the clubhouse of Mr. Rossi’s most star-struck fanbois, how will they survive without him? Sure, gracelessly refusing to call his twice-victorious opponent by her proper title whilst urging her (and others) to make sacrifices on our behalf will do for now, but how, oh how will they continue? Perhaps they’ll just have to climb down from their treehouse, recognize that politics is more about policy than personality, and understand that vote-by-mail is here to stay, resulting in sky-high turnout rates for King County.

Nah, they’ll just transfer their hopeless man-crush to someone else:

Mitt Romney has the good looks of a President cast in Hollywood.

While he didn’t actually play in any B-movies, or action-hero roles, or subsequently make a mess of governing California, we can imagine he did. And darn it, that’s good enough!

His wife, Ann, would make an attractive first lady and, politically crass as it sounds, her multiple sclerosis would gain sympathy in a campaign.

STOP MAKING FUN OF TRIG!

All five sons are handsome, successful and married to beautiful women.

And, like Mitt, they were careful to go nowhere near the war their old man supported.

(There’s a special place in wingnut hell for any guy with (a) the guts to serve in an actual shooting war, who (b) then denounces it after returning home. Mitt’s refusal to do either makes him Their Man.)

He is a member of an American home-grown religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, better known as the Mormons. Although Mitt says Jesus is his Lord and Savior, many Christians consider Mormonism a cult. This is because the LDS theology is at variance with orthodox Christianity as defined by the creeds and other Christian statements of faith.

Having your political party depend on the votes of bigoted fundie Christians has a downside, you say? Blasphemy!

He probably could get by the faith issue, America is more tolerant than in years past…

Despite the chronic and strenuous efforts of said fundie voters.

As a candidate in past campaigns, he took some decidedly liberal stands on issue such as abortion, gay rights and immigration.

It’s almost like he wanted to get elected in our modern America.

He now touts himself as a conservative especially on financial matters but to claim the conservative mantle, he has flip-flopped on several aforementioned social issues. He may be able to slip by this by arguing he has learned his lesson since his days as a Republican candidate in one of the bluest of blue states.

Flip-flopping and claims of expediency being the currency of our self-described moral leaders.

Mr. Romney has his work cut out for him.

Sadly, the Magic 8-Ball says he’s the candidate most likely to die in a bizarre accident involving a big jet airplane.

post by tensor

Jonathan Garder officially adds sexual identity to the long list of topics which utterly confuse him:

There are a number of diseases that are transmitted through this kind of sexual activity that is [sic] not transmitted through monogamous heterosexual activity.

Why does the adjective “monogamous” appear in one clause, but not the other? Why not compare monogamous heterosexuals with monogamous homosexuals, and non-monogamous heterosexuals with non-monogamous homosexuals? Or is he claiming that the number of sexual partners has no bearing on the chances of STD transmission?

There is an effort to divide the world into those who are homosexual and those who are not. Apparently, according to this narrative, those who are not homosexual are supposed to ostracize and hate those who are not. At least, that’s what I hear homosexual activists say.

Although I have lived on Capitol Hill in Seattle for many years, I have never heard any homosexual — activist or not — tell me I should ostracize and hate him. On the other hand, I have heard Christian preachers harp constantly on the “sins” of homosexuals. Preachers who sound a lot like this:

Thieves, drug dealers, murderers, and child abusers all find themselves in the same boat as homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts in our church, along with adulterers and pedophiles.

Well, it’s the church’s building, and it can, um, go boating with whomever it wants. But why do two adult women who engage in consensual sexual relations get the same treatment as a man who victimizes small children?

Of, on the other hand, you define homosexuals as people who have homosexual tendencies but choose not to engage in homosexual activity and even may choose to marry heterosexually and produce children, then our church has plenty of these people, and we honestly don’t care.

This church welcomes bisexuals, so long as they only go one way? Well, again, each church gets to decide these matters for itself.

The fact that they choose not to succumb to these temptations make them saints worthy of every honor.

So a straight guy who has sex only with his wife is an ordinary guy, but a bisexual guy who has sex only with his wife is a “saint worthy of every honor”? I had no idea the LDS church had such a thing for bisexuals.

The fact that they are tempted to evil makes them cut from the same cloth that everyone else is.

Uh, Jonathan, you just implied they were very different.

They want us to believe that the LDS church hates those who participate in homosexual activity when we do not, and we never will.

You just imply they are morally identical to men who rape boys. I personally have no problem hating men who rape boys. (Your milage may vary.)

Our doctrine is clear, and it really has nothing to do with sexual orientation or whatever other temptations anyone may have.

You just said that bisexuals who deny half their sexual urges are “saints”.

LDS doctrine does not distinguish between homosexual or heterosexual.

Other than self-denying non-heterosexuals being saints.

A homosexual is a heterosexual is a human being, and it’s pointless to divide people based on their sexual preferences.

Except to beatify those persons with homosexual “preferences” who don’t act upon their desires.

post by tensor

And, appropriately enough, he’s not going to be honest about it, either:

In an editorial that will not win them any support from fans of the 1st amendment, our local monopoly newspaper attacks people and organizations making political arguments this election year.

We who actually support Constitutional rights (I’m a third-generation Member of the American Civil Liberties Union) will wonder what the heck Jim is talking about, as the editorial never demands censorship of the political ads, nor punishment for those who produced them; indeed, it counsels readers to ignore mud-slinging, and to educate themselves honestly on the issues and candidates. (Maybe that’s why Jim’s upset?)

Oddly, nowhere in this page-long editorial do they criticize a specific ad.

That’s because everyone’s already had too much fun doing that already.

The Times is especially unhappy because they don’t know who is paying for some of the ads.

Newspapers have no business knowing things.

(Have I offered to help our local reporters with metaphors? Why, yes I have — and more than once. I wish some of them would take me up on that offer.)

(Has anyone told Jim that nobody cares what he thinks about local reporters? Why, yes, we have — and more than once. We’re still happy he’s ignoring us, because we’re here to make fun of him.)

Actually, the groups do have to say who they are; they just don’t have to say who gave them donations.

Jim believes this is a meaningful distinction.

The editorial writer(s) thinks that many of the ads are unpleasant and even dishonest, and the editorial writer(s) wants everyone who contributes to a political argument to be exposed.

Imagine, an editorial criticizes something, and a newspaper wants facts to be known! Jim can only shake his head and cry.

If you believe in freedom of speech, then you have to accept that you may hear and see many political arguments you find unpleasant, even dishonest. It’s that simple.

I don’t think anyone who reads your output could ever doubt any of that, Jim.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t encourage political figures to be more honest in their arguments, just that we should do that by making arguments of our own.

We could write newspaper editorials, for example.

For instance, I contributed a little toward that goal by comparing what local House candidate Suzan DelBene says in one of her TV ads with what she says in her economic plan.

Telling us about your abject failure to understand economics doesn’t really count as a public contribution.

And — credit where due — the news side of the Seattle Times has done a fairly good series rating the truth of various ads.

They then wrote an editorial about a topic of which they had made an effort to obtain knowledge. (OK, so this is why Jim’s complaining!)

The second argument is not as simple; everything else being equal, I would prefer to be able to know who is paying for a political ad.

We citizens didn’t just prefer it, Jim, we required it, via the public disclosure laws we passed. And we’re angry outsiders can violate our laws with impunity. Your witlessly dishonest apologia for these scofflaws doesn’t help:

But everything else isn’t always equal, and supporters of free speech almost all believe that even anonymous free speech deserves our support.

As even you’ve admitted, the speech is not anonymous; the sponsor is. And we don’t have any need to excuse such lawbreaking.

…but even a journalist who has not studied history should know that the Federalist papers were written under a pseudonym, “Publius”.

And their authors’ reasons for so doing had nothing to do with hiding money from public scrutiny, as Jim Miller would know, if he indeed were actually to know such things.

And in more recent years, courts have often protected the anonymity of those who might be subject to reprisals, in particular, those who contributed to civil rights organizations or far left political parties.

So, let’s have the anonymous masters of our local political puppets go to court, and claim persecution. By their doing so under oath, this problem would pretty much resolve itself. (And, we’d get the added bonus of another post to mock, as Jim equated blatant perjury with free speech.)

Those who think that such reprisals are in the past should study the politics in Chicago, where Obama and some of his closest aides learned their political lessons. Or just take a look at what happened in California during the fight over Proposition 8.

You’ll have to look for yourself, as Jim has wisely decided against any attempt to justify those smears with any evidentiary citations of any kind whatsoever.

One last mildly ironic point: The Times editorial attacking unpleasant ads and anonymous donations is filled with unpleasant language and is — unsigned.

Jim blows through yet another bottle of smelling salts, and tears another lace hanky. Fie on you, you foul-mouthed ink-stained wretches!

And Jim, you’ve gotten it backwards yet again. We don’t care that the editorial was anonymous, because we’re pretty sure The Times paid for it.

… younger readers might find this hard to believe …

…that Jim still thinks you exist.

post by tensor

Over at our near-namesake, it seems to do so:

Controlling for all of the other factors thought to shape voter participation, our model showed that the availability of early voting reduced turnout in the typical county by three percentage points.

Well, that could be a problem for advocates of early voting as a means to increase turnout. But what did Jim Miller think of the original paper?

I haven’t read the original paper.

I took a quick look at it. The central part of their claim is quite interesting:

Advocates, journalists, and politicians frequently propose changes to election laws out of the belief that making voting easier will increase voter turnout. [...] We challenge this notion, and show that the most popular reform – early voting – actually decreases turnout, an unanticipated consequence that has significant implications for policy and for theories of how state governments can influence turnout.

If a state had mail-in ballots for years, in addition to polling places, then closed all of the polling places, does that count as “making voting easier”? That would seem to make it harder, especially for those of us who’d become used to a polling place. That was the case in Washington State, so the applicability of this study here would seem questionable.

So, how does voting fare in a specific state, before and after early voting?

…is based on a three-part statistical analysis of the 2008 presidential election.

Oh, they didn’t look at historical data. Well, that’s reassuring.

Having ignored the actual paper in favor of The New York Times editorial about it, Jim set a pretty low bar for his commenters. Luckily, the amen corner there could limbo under a rug the floor:

If this state and other states weren’t so lazy, they would require registration before each Presidential election. They do that in Canada, you know.

We await KDS’ in-depth study of voter registration in Canadian Presidential elections*. (While Jim Miller won’t bother to read it, he may indeed agree that the recent set of Canadian Presidents shows a definite trend.)

I like that idea, of registering every year. It should include showing ID and proof of state residency.
It should be a little inconvenient to vote.

Heck, why not retinal scans, fingerprints, a couple of witnesses, and a blood test? That way, after the right-wing candidate loses in Washington State (a huge surprise, that), the supporters can shriek about voter fraud, because they never, ever need any evidence to do so.

However, I am all for requiring literacy tests. For teabaggers.

It bugs the daylights out of me that an admitted illegal alien is out drumming up the vote. I hope any registrations that this group gets are closely scrutinized. I bet most/all are fake.

Logic, how the heck does that work?

*Yeah, scottd and demo kid beat me to this one. It’s been a long day, alright?

post by tensor

Jim invites us into his rich fantasy life:

Yesterday, Washington state senator Rodney Tom knocked on my door, and we had a spirited discussion of his record.

In Jim’s world, a politician who is going door-to-door, seeking re-election, interrupts his busy day to spar with a citizen who will never vote for him.

(It would have been even better if I had been expecting his visit. Instead, I was just about to go for a bicycle ride and was dressed in an unfashionable, and rather grubby, outfit.)

Dear Penthouse Politico: Yesterday, a hunky, yet politically-suspect ex-comrade unexpectedly happened by my residence. I just so happened to be dressed in torn clothes…

Tom, who is now a Democrat, claims, in his brochure, to be “principled” and “independent”, and to have delivered “results”.

Well, there’s a shocking set of claims from an American politician seeking re-election. (When he was a Republican, did he claim to be “corrupt” and “slavish”, and to have delivered “squat”? Is that what Jim really wants in a state senator?)

When pressed, he agreed with me that Democrats have mostly been in charge of education policy in this state — and that we have mediocre public schools.

We so totally believe the conversation went like this.

When pressed, he agreed with me that the state’s budget problems were less severe when Republicans last controlled the state senate.

That was many years ago, when the economy was much better.

I am not sure whether he understood one point I tried to make.

(Then he can accurately claim to represent a majority of your neighbors, Jim.) Seriously, next time, you’ll just have to use a larger rhetorical sledgehammer.

Legislators who vote for reckless-spending party leaders like Speaker Pelosi, or, in Tom’s case, Washington state senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, are partly responsible for that reckless spending — even if they oppose some spending measures.

Jim actually believes he can talk a Democrat into voting for a Republican leader.

Choosing such leaders almost guarantees failure on controlling spending, regardless of how “independent” an individual legislator might be. You can vote for Pelosi or Brown, or you can be fiscally responsible — but it is almost impossible to do both.

Since Jim reminded us of the federal House, perhaps he can recount all of the Republican Speakers from the last decade who were “fiscally responsible”?

You may want to look at his video critique of Tom’s record, which is quite funny, and, as far as I know, entirely accurate.

As far as Jim knows, pigs may actually fly.

Tom switched parties for reasons that are still partly obscure.

Well, you could ask him. Like, y’know, when he shows up at your door.

He describes himself as … disciplined on fiscal policies, open to innovation in education, and moderate on social policies — and says that he was no longer able to stay in the Republican party. Which doesn’t make sense to me, though it may to him.

Jim may be the last person on earth who believes Republicans are “disciplined on fiscal policies” and “moderate on social policies”.

When he switched parties, our local journalists did not press him on the reasons for the switch, perhaps because most of them see it as natural to be a Democrat, and unnatural to be a Republican.

Or maybe they’re more interested in how he votes, than in obsessing about his party label.

There are alternative explanations for his switch, political ambition, for instance.

That would certainly distinguish him from all other politicians, especially Republicans.

He may simply have decided to go with the district, which was becoming more Democratic.

And yet, he has teh nerve to call himself some kind of “elected representative”!!1!

Or, he may have seen himself as blocked from moving up in the Republican party.

Thus lending credence to his claims of being “disciplined on fiscal policies, open to innovation in education, and moderate on social policies”.

There are also less pleasant possible explanations.

He could be a space alien, plotting world domination by confusing one disheveled weekend cyclist at a time.

For example, prejudice against evangelicals and traditional Catholics, which is quite common in this area.

Why would our educated, culturally-diverse, kid-friendly populace have a problem with intolerant Bible-bangers, and apologists for pedophilia?

Tom may have been uncomfortable belonging to a party that has, mostly, welcomed them.

You think?

But it’s not all fashion victimization, and bewilderment about why a politician would want to stay in office. Jim also gives us this beauty: “…what I would call a Dick Cheney Republican, disciplined on fiscal policies…” That’s right, Dick “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter” Cheney is now “disciplined on fiscal policies.” Let’s play this free-association for all it’s worth! I’ll start with a few, then you try!

what I would call a Val Stevens Republican, conciliatory on social issues
what I would call a Mark Sanford Republican, loyal to his wife
what I would call a Dave Reichert Republican, voting with his district
what I would call a Pam Roach Republican, not bat-shit insane

post by tensor

For “reporting” the “news” that a glibertarian “think tank” from the other Washington whines about our own Governor Gregoire:

On taxing and spending, the libertarian think tank gives “A” grades to four governors, three of them Republicans, and “F” grades to seven governors, six of them Democrats.

(That’s the closest thing to “fair and unbiased” Cato has ever done.) Because taxing and spending are the only important things. How the money is spent doesn’t matter. Neither does the voting population’s approval of such taxing and spending, because we’re fit only to hear unwanted, impertinent, useless lectures from wingnut welfare queens 2,500 miles from us. (Let us always recall the Teabagger creed: “WAAAAAAaaaaaahh!” Oh, sorry, I meant their other creed: “If our side doesn’t win, it’s not representative democracy.”)

But Jim didn’t win our coveted award merely by artless cut-and-paste of hyperlinks. No, he made the extra effort, and looked up some interesting facts to give context and meaning just pulled some more material straight out of his ass:

Cato gives the Democratic governor of Wyoming, Dave Freudenthal, a “B” grade. But I suspect that the heavy Republican majorities in the state legislature (41-18 and 23-7) may explain much of the spending restraint in the state.

Jim’s lazy refusal to perform any research at all into his claim vaulted him past the crowded field at that site. Congratulations, and I’m sure our award will top even that Sharkanksy Award for Acute Political Awareness he won awhile back.

(Judging Note: Jim earned merely an “F” for his cut-and-paste work. We awarded him the minus for his ignorant misuse of the word “impose” to mean “advocate politely in respectful political discourse,” i.e. [a]ctivists, let by the older Bill Gates, are trying again to impose an income tax here…. Jim’s defenders, should any ever exist, might argue that since Jim’s crew over there has no experience of any kind whatsoever in either polite or respectful political discourse, he should be absolved of the full F-, but the rules here don’t allow for such bleeding-heart excuses.)