Category: Politics

Topic Header

Evangelicals Say To Hell with Global Warming

Buck Banks

For a group of people who believe the most outrageous things — the Great Flood, Moses parted the Red Sea, Mary was a virgin and Jesus arose from the dead — they sure seem averse to believing in something that seems damned obvious: global warming. A recent study by God’s statistician George Barna found that evangelical Christians are less likely to believe — despite photographic evidence — that the icecaps are melting.

Only 33 percent of evangelical Christians view global warming as a “major” problem facing the country compared to people of other faiths or nonbelievers, more than half of whom say the threat to the environment is severe:

Each faith audience interacts with the concept of global warming in distinct ways. Evangelicals would rather think about other things.

Among non-evangelical born-again Christians, 55 percent say global warming is a major problem and 59 percent of notional Christians agree. Overall, 51 percent of the nation’s Christian community views global warming as severe while 42 percent assigns the largely debated issue less importance.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of those associated with a faith other than Christianity and 69 percent of atheists and agnostics describe global warming as a major problem.

Catholics (59 percent) showed more concern about global warming than Protestants (52 percent). And mainline Protestants (59 percent) also expressed greater alarm than did non-mainline Protestants (49 percent).

The Barna stooge who directed the study insightfully interpreted his findings this way:

“The survey confirms that Americans disagree about climate change,” said David Kinnaman, who directed the study. “Each faith audience interacts with the concept of global warming in distinct ways. Evangelicals would rather think about other things. Non-evangelicals say the environment is important to them, yet they are far from convinced that global warming is as important as everyone says. By contrast, many non-Christians view global climate alterations as the central element of their environmental engagement.”

Duh. What Kinnaman fails to note is that evangelical and born-again Christians are more likely to view global warming in the context of millennialism — you know, Armageddon, the Rapture, the end of the world as we know it. Your basic Bible thumper has a difficult time getting worked up enough to reduce, reuse or recycle because he knows that Jesus is liable to show up any day now.

Well I for one am working on reducing my carbon imprint, planting trees and hunkering down for some rough weather ahead. I’m betting that global climate change will get here a lot sooner than Jesus.

USA Today Creator Al Neuharth Reads Pensito Review

Buck Banks

This week Al Neuharth is celebrating USA Today’s quarter-century of turning trees into the intellectual lowest common denominator. It’s hard to believe that it was just 25 years ago that virtually overnight Americans went from being human beings with complex lives to being collective cyphers in brightly colored charts and graphs.

‘This is a lot of interesting bullshit.’
— Al Neuharth

USA Today did for the newspaper business what Kevin Federline did for rap music. OK, maybe not quite that bad, but you know what I mean.

You have to hand it to him, though, Neuharth says he still reads five or six newspapers a day, apparently with a straight face. And, it would seem from comments he made yesterday at a luncheon in his honor, that he’s an avid reader of Pensito Review:

He also reads blogs — “more than I’d care to mention” — but doesn’t have a particularly high regard for them. “Most of them, when I read them, I say, ‘This is a lot of interesting bullshit,'” he says. “But what bothers me about bloggers is there’s a growing sentiment that maybe the government should exercise some control over them. I’m totally opposed to that.” He likens today’s bloggers to the pamphleteers whose incendiary writing helped bring about the American Revolution.

That said, he has no interest in joining their ranks. “I use the internet to retrieve information, not to peddle information or gossip.”

It’s that “interesting bullshit” comment that leads me to believe Pensito Review is among the exaggerated number of blogs Neuharth reads. That’s how I usually describe my co-editors’ posts on this site, so it must be the case. And the “information or gossip” reference seals it.

I’m pretty sure Neuharth comments fairly regularly, too, as pie-chart-al@aol.com.

Hey, Al, congrats on the silver anniversary. According to a pie chart, there’s a 21.37 percent chance that you’ll continue to read Pensito Review.

Are Chinese Zombies Lurking On Your Computer?

Buck Banks

First it was pet food, then it was lead paint on toys, but the latest toxic import from China might be more dangerous than both of those incidents — computer zombies that inhabit the computers of unsuspecting Americans. The U.S. government knows about it, but will not officially accuse the Chinese.

As of the morning of Sept. 14, there were exactly 735,598 computers in the United States infested by Chinese zombies.

The wave of cyberprobes or cyberattacks against Pentagon networks and government computer systems in France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom this summer appears to emanate from China, but no one in authority in the Defense Department or any of the other countries that have been victimized seems willing to finger the Chinese government or military as the culprit.

Paul Strassmann — who served as director of Defense information in the early 1990s, the acting chief information officer of NASA from 2002 to 2003, and now serves as a Defense senior adviser — declines to point fingers, either. He prefers, instead, to focus on one startling fact about Chinese activity in cyberspace: As of the morning of Sept. 14, there were exactly (remember, Strassmann is an engineer and likes precision) 735,598 computers in the United States infested by Chinese zombies, he said. Zombies are those small programs that infect computers at the root level and allow the computers to be controlled by remote users.

“This is a fact that should get everyone’s attention,” Strassmann said. Those zombie computers can launch massive denial-of-service attacks, spewing 1,000 messages a second against target computers, he said.

The ostensible purpose of harboring these malicious little programs on U.S. computers would be to use them in denial-of-service attacks against Defense Department computer networks:

Defense experiences millions of cyberscans of the Global Information Grid every day, according to an internal talking paper it prepared in response to news reports this month that China had successfully attacked Pentagon computer systems, including those used by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The paper dances around the subject of Chinese culpability and would only go as far as to report, “We have seen attempts by a variety of state- and nonstate-sponsored organizations to gain unauthorized access to, or otherwise degrade, DoD information systems.”

So whatever you do, don’t open that e-mail about Viagra or the one about nice Russian girls because they could be harboring little zombie units just waiting to get into the millions of lines of code that constitute your Microsoft operating system. To check your computer and to monitor the inexorable march of th computer zombies, visit CipherTrust, a company that sells Internet detection and protection products.

Fred Thompson Caught Smoking the Illegal Stuff

Trish

Fred Thompson talks tough about continuing Cold War era prohibitions against Cuba, as long as they’re the ones that prevent people’s families from visiting, circumvent humanitarian efforts, and keep Michael Moore out.

Fred Thompson: “You know, if it’s good, I smoke it”

Courting Miami Cuban-Americans on Radio Mambi on Friday in Little Havana, Fred Thompson was adamant about his approach to Fidel Castro’s Cuba: “We definitely would maintain sanctions, would maintain the embargo.”

But when it comes to how such measures affect Fred it’s a whole different story, according to the St. Petersburg Times’ Adam Smith.

So we were curious about a Weekly Standard article noting “box upon box” of cigars from Havana in Thompson’s office.

…Thompson brushed off the apparent contradiction between the embargo and his fondness for Cuban stogies. “If I have a friend that occasionally passes me a cigar, I don’t check its heritage,” he said. “You know, if it’s good, I smoke it.”

The “if it’s good, I smoke it” argument has failed many a stoner and I can’t say it works for Fred. I mean, come on. Like Fred doesn’t lust after Cuban see-gars anymore than he lusts after his usually scantily-clad young wife.

We’re supposed to believe that for Fred, it’s not about about the status and mystique of those 2003 Cohiba Double Coronas or those 2000 Romeo y Julieta Exhibiction No.2s. They’s just good smokes, ya’ll.

At least one other listener was unconvinced.

Miami-Dade Democratic chairman Joe Garcia questioned whether law-and-order voters will embrace a candidate “who smokes something illegal.”

Elderly Nuns Evicted As Church Raises $660 Mil Fine against Predator Priests

Jon Ponder

The Catholic Church in Southern California must pay $660 million to victims of ephebophile priests, so, naturally, one of the first things to go on the chopping block is a nuns’ home in Santa Barbara.

“We all have to pay the price for the sins of the few … I didn’t get a raise this year.”
– Spokesman for the Los Angeles Archdiocese, reacting to nuns’ loss of their home and jobs.

The nuns have four months to move out, according to a letter from the archdiocese. The notice, which was dated June 28 but not received until the end of August, asked the women to vacate the property no later than Dec. 31 — and noted that an earlier departure “would be acceptable as well.” Signed by Msgr. Royale M. Vadakin, the archdiocese’s vicar general, the letter offers the nuns no recourse but thanks them for their understanding and cooperation during a difficult time.

The convent is a small house Santa Barbara’s Eastside, a rapidly shrinking lower-income section of one of the toniest and most desirable cities in the United States. (Oprah has a home nearby; Michael Jackson and the Reagans have owned ranches in the area.) The modest convent is the home of three nuns:

Sister Angela, who formerly worked at Catholic Charities [in Santa Barbara] and is now retired, suffers from failing eyesight and other health problems and uses a walker. But she continues to do volunteer immigration and translation work with parishioners. Sister Consuelo works in Catholic education at Our Lady of Sorrows Church. Sister Margarita is the housekeeper and takes care of Sister Angela. They maintain the building using Sister Angela’s Social Security SSI disability allotment and Sister Consuelo’s income. They have no idea where they will go before the December 31 deadline arrives — possibly to the Los Angeles-area Bethany convent.

The nun’s house has been assessed at $98,000, but home prices in the neighborhood start around $700,000 (a steal in Santa Barbara). Not surprisingly, a bishop’s residence in a neighborhood nearby where prices start at $1.5 million is not being sold:

“Auxiliary Bishop [Thomas] Curry of Santa Barbara is residing by himself in a former convent in San Roque, an upper-crust area,” [said Rosemary Escalera Gutierrez, who is the real life sister of Sister Angela]. “The convent there is triple the size of the Bethany Convent and is triple the value. Why not sell the more lucrative real estate that houses one individual?”

And Bishop Curry has been accused of complicity in the sex scandal:

Bishop Curry was in the news last week when it was revealed that he may have been aware that a priest accused of sexual abuse planned to flee to his native Mexico in 1988. The priest is still a fugitive.

Reacting to a reporter’s inquiry about the nuns’ eviction, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Archdiocese was less than compassionate:

“We all have to pay the price for the sins of the few,” [Tod] Tamberg said. “I didn’t get a raise this year.”

A group of Santa Barbarans met last week to formulate a plan to help the nuns. It would be nice to think that God is on their side.

Chertoff’s Guts and that Sick Feeling of Impending Doom

Buck Banks

Remember at the beginning of summer when Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff ramped the nation up a notch on alert for terrorist attacks based on what he called his “gut feeling?” Well, an economist has actually looked at something called data and determined that it must have been something Chertoff ate because his indigestion sure wasn’t based on hard evidence of a clear and present danger.

We’re using Chertoff’s guts to predict terrorism like we used Grandma’s elbow to predict rain.

Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton who served as the chief economist at the Labor Department from 1994 to 1995, says government officials should avoid making vague statements about terrorism that have little empirical basis. Krueger decided to test Chertoff’s “gut feeling” about seasonal patterns of terrorist activity against data on worldwide terrorist attacks from the National Counterterrorism Center, the federal agency responsible for compiling terrorism statistics. His conclusion might leave you a little queasy: “I wouldn’t draw too strong a gut feeling from this data.”

The economist found that, historically, attacks by al Qaeda and Sunni extremist groups have been no more frequent in the summer months. When all terrorist groups are counted, the number of attacks worldwide has been about 10 percent higher in July and August than in other months, he said. But he characterized this as a small difference, noting that other types of incidents such as boating accidents go up by much more than 10 percent in the summer.

“Would you scare 300 million people on the basis of those tiny blips in those charts?” Krueger asked. “It didn’t seem to me to be constructive.”

But this is the never-ending war on terror, which has nothing to do with “constructive.” Chertoff’s belly bubblings follow a familiar pattern established since 2001 — periodically, citing ever-so-vague reasons, government officials bump us up a color or two on their handy apprehension scale.

Perhaps, since we’re using Chertoff’s guts to predict terrorism like we used Grandma’s elbow to predict rain, we should revert to having soothsayers read the future in intestines — say Chertoff’s or any other official’s who gets his jollies cranking up the national anxiety meter. I bet then we’d see a less somatic, more scientific approach to assessing the terror threat.

Romney Blunders With Obama Jab

Trish

Unaltered image from the Mitt Romney campaign web site page, “Defeating the Jihadists”

New entry to the Mitt Romney is Possibly Even Less Intelligent than the Current Occupant file: Romney, in his mindless rhetoric, again misused a word that arouses strong emotion among followers of Islam.

DOD experts: American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting

“In my view, the most crucial objective we have in Iraq is to make sure it does not become a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Jihad terrorists,” Romney said.

“Of course, if Barack Obama had had his way and pulled our troops out months ago, that’s exactly what would have happened.”

Let’s ignore for the moment Romney’s idiotic mischaracterization of Obama’s position and focus on his equally dillheaded use of “Jihad.”

As Buck pointed out, even the Department of Defense goes, “Doh!” when American opinion leaders misuse that term.

The two [Dr. Douglas E. Streusand and Army Lt. Col. Harry D. Tunnell IV of the National Defense University in Washington] believe the right words can help fight the global war on terror. “American leaders misuse language to such a degree that they unintentionally wind up promoting the ideology of the groups the United States is fighting,” the men wrote in an article titled “Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism.”

Buck went on address usage for “jihad” specifically.

An example is jihadist. Most of us take jihadist or jihadi to mean an Islamic extremist who is fighting a holy war. But Steusand and Tunnell maintain that in Arabic jihad “literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression, Jihad fi sabil illah, striving in the path of God.” Which is considered a good thing for Muslims to do.

A person commenting on Buck’s post, who signed in as Nazim Haqqani, further clarified.

As the two DOD officials correctly state, by falling into the lexicon trap and referring to the those terrorist as jihadis; you are giving them undue legitimacy.

Jihad is akin to the Just war concept in medival Christianity (with its minor differences in normative traditions) and by lumping random acts of violence as jihad; you anger more Muslims, such as myself, and risk radicalizing those who feel their religion is under attack.

Romney has proven repeatedly he is not so sharp. The infamous dog on the car roof episode, the varmint hunting shenanigans, and all the flip-flops on whatever it is the Mormon thinks he thinks all lead to one conclusion: Romney’s a dumbass.

But as Jon once pointed out:

Romney is indeed a dumbass. Fortunately for him, being as stupid as a bag of hammers is no longer a disqualifier for the presidency.

GOP Leader Boehner: U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq Are an ‘Investment’ and a ‘Small Price’ to Pay

Jon Ponder

On CNN Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner told Wolf Blitzer that the loss of U.S. blood and treasure in Iraq is an “investment” and a “small price” to pay if it leads to destroying al Qaeda.

Even the GOP’s sainted Gen. David Petreaus does not believe Bush’s war in Iraq is making America safer. So how can the deaths of U.S. troops be worth it?

Leaving aside the fact that we’d be hearing howls from ideologues like Boehner right now if a Democrat had so casually dismissed the deaths of U.S. troops, the Minority Leader’s statement is all the more nauseating because it is underpinned by a lie: Al Qaeda in Iraq, a force of just a few hundred men, poses no threat to U.S. national security.

And even if we stay there until the last member of al Qaeda in Iraq is dead, it won’t affect the viability of the al Qaeda that attacked us on Sept. 11 at all.

Here’s the transcript of Boehner’s statement (emphasis added):

BLITZER: Mr. Leader, here’s the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

In his testimony this week, even the GOP’s sainted Gen. David Petreaus signaled that he does not believe that Bush’s war in Iraq is making America safer. If the man in charge of the can’t war can’t assure us that American security rests on the outcome of the war, how can the lives of American troops, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and the billions of dollars we’re spending be worth it?

And even if it were worth it, how can Boehner get away with saying the deaths of U.S. troops are an investment — and a small price at that?