My Degree is Bigger Than Your Degree

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science -- Gleick et al. 328 (5979): 689 -- Science

Degrees, IQ, numbers of scientists, polls, etc are all exceedingly interesting and the longer list you can get of the folks with the most credentials, the more impressive it seems. At least to many. Apparently, we have come to the point where disagreement can be called "McCarthy-like", a fairly odd designation, since given the opening of the USSR post Reagan, a lot of his assertions have been proven to be correct.

I suppose maybe "McCarthy-like" could be better termed to mean "pugnatiously standing up for what you believe to be true in the face of withering criticism, up to and including your name being smeared and becoming an insult decades after your death. The fact that it comes to light that the bulk of what you asserted turned out to be correct, and that is completely ignored is just another factor for standing up against the popular crowd in the modern world. The penalties for iconoclasm have always been high -- in the modern world, those that dare go against liberal dogma pay highest.

So HCGW is now on the same scientific standing as old earth dating and evolution? I'd argue there is at least a couple big differences:
1). The earth being 4.5 Billion or 10K years old doesn't really call for any difference in human activity today except for those that have confused the bible with a technical manual -- and not many of those are going go for the 4.5 Billion
2). Ditto on evolution -- if we and the monkey's share a common ancestor back a few million years, that has little effect on day to day governmental decisions.

Notice the difference with HCGW.

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Age of the earth and evolution are descriptive, not predictive. Other cases in which science makes predictions need to be TESTED prior to be accepted as truth. Einstein's theory of relativity has been tested by bending of light during eclipses and other natural phenomenon for example. The Bernoulli principles of air motion that allow planes to fly and ships to tack into the wind are "tested" via common experience.

The old earth view would say that our measurements ... even those extrapolated from the oldest fossilized trees and ice cores only deal with the tiniest fraction of the 4.5 Billion years of earth history. We know that "Greenland" is called that because the Vikings inhabited it from like 800-1300 AD, and they could grow crops and pasture cattle. Then the climate cooled and they had to abandon their settlements.

The same scientists that tell us that the the current warming is human caused would also tell us that there have been numerous cold and warm cycles on the planet over it's history -- enough warmth to melt enough ice to cover vastly larger areas with ocean, and enough cooling to expose a land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. Certainly, they would not say that our ancestors -- chimp or proto-human caused those cycles.

We have indeed entered into a "new era", but it is NOT some new era where science faces hard questions when it formerly did not. No, this is an era where there are enough scientists of a certain political bent that they believe they successfully brand any opposition in negative political terms and use the patina of science to gain control of current human activity. It could be that we have started "de-evolution" -- the form of argument used by this list of folks has more in common with the common simian form of adjudication by comparison of testicle size  than it does of scientific inquiry.

I have a long list of impressive folks, and you are "McCarthy-like" ... So there.

The Government is Half Full

RealClearPolitics - Disasters Show That Government Works

I suspect EJ and I agree on nothing politically -- that is why I buck up and read him from time to time. This column is a great lesson on how our perspectives change. During the Bush administration, the situation from EJ's perspective was dark, darker and darkest ... Enron, Halliburton, 9-11, Iraq, Katrina ... you name it. All were absolute perfect proofs of government NOT working. My how things have changed.

Now? Well, BO called for more off-short drilling just a few weeks ago, but somehow there is no government fault in the actual spill having taken place. Had this happened during Bush, the screaming would be deafening about oil men in the WH, Cheney, Halliburton, the rape of the environment, too slow a response, wrong people in charge, etc, etc. My how perfectly this is all being handled now. But wait, there is a huge environmental disaster in the gulf on BO's watch. Can EJ honestly look in the mirror and say that he would have had CLOSE to this attitude had this happened 2 years ago?

We had no terrorist attacks on US soil from '01 to Dec '09. Now we have had two in which we happened to luck out because the equipment failed to operate. Would EJ be as easy on the Secret Service -- or Fox News for that matter if somebody that had ever admitted to watching a minute of anything on Fox tried to shoot BO but the gun jammed? I don't think I ever hear Bush get one second of credit for anything he did in avoiding attacks ( would that have meant "the government works"? ) ... now BO gets zero blame from the MSM for the fact that we have had two attacks where we lucked out ... an of course one at Ft Hood where we didn't. Ho hum, "government works" ... now at least, for EJ. For 8 years it was an abject failure.

The reason that Bush's popularity went so low is because he failed to control the growth of government, so many Republicans abandoned him ... and the party. The penalty for that was being saddled with a Democrat congress in '06 and BO in '08, but I do understand the principle.

Tea Party, Conservative, etc are about SMALLER government, not NO GOVERNMENT. EJ knows that, he is just shilling for his party to try to make the opposition sound loony. To me it backfires and makes him sound loony.

They're Getting Warmer

Not A "One-Off" Event | The Weekly Standard

The NYC fizzled car bomb is yet another "lucky break" -- with lots of similarities in ineptness ... ineptness of perpetrator (thankfully), but also of US intelligence, and certainly in the idiocy of the follow-up. How many "one off events" is it going to take before they are successful? or before the BO administration realizes that stopping the use of "War on Terror" verbiage by our side does less than nothing to actually stop terror.

Unfortunately, this is what I'd expect to see. It is clear that the actions of the Bush Administration very much disrupted the terrorist networks and capabilities -- so much so that prior to BO taking over, the "shoe bomber" in Dec '01 was their "best effort" after 9-11. The momentum has run out.

Now, the BO policy changes, many of which we don't know (nor should we) are being shown to be ineffective. If McCain had been elected and done the same things, the MSM would be writing this Blog -- only MUCH harsher, and with headlines "McCain Anti-Terror Measures Failing" ... "Why the Incompetence on Terror?" ... etc, etc.

The terror networks are clearly getting back on their feet. We are sitting on our butts assuming that they will start to love our "citizen of the world" president soon. The fact that they have had a couple of bomb fizzles is an undeserved blessing that we can only hope that the administration is using as a wake-up call. Unfortunately, their rhetoric would not indicate that, and the lapdog MSM isn't likely to provide any spur to action.

A Little Optimism, Conservative Style

The U.S. Is Not Going The Way Of Europe Page 2 of 2 - Forbes.com

His main thesis is that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree -- we are a nation of folks whose ancestors got up and left Europe, and he believes our active spirit is has been passed down. I certainly hope he is right!

So while so many of us--presumably a majority--are presently disgusted with the governance from Washington this past decade, history may well show that the failed presidencies of Bush and Obama may be the best thing that ever happened. History will reveal that their failures sparked a great awakening to remind us that big government and prosperity don't mix

Report from PIPs New Shooters

Those of you not interested in shooting -- I wanted to get this to the PIWPSC page and this was the thought that came to my mind. Consider it "Blog Abuse". 

Thanks for a great job by all, even if Marla and I were an hour late -- never believe FB! ;-)

I thought the outdoors experience was much improved from last year. Things I really liked:

1). The "line up" ... just going through the "Make ready; Are you ready; Stand-by; BEEP" a couple of times is INVALUABLE to people getting started.

2). Three stages is just perfect, don't add more for the starters or it will get to be too much.

3). I think the level of complexity on the 3rd stage was "maximum perfect" ... a little less would still be fine, more would be over the top.

Now suggestions -- and they are JUST that, it REALLY thought it was fantastic, so these are just in the interest of "perfection":

-- I'd cut the "super detail and the anecdotes" in the presentation (I just saw the end, which was likely long on that) ... how someone got DQed at some super match is as useless as pointers on a Space Shuttle landing to a guy just ready to take his first turn at the controls of a Cessna. Just focus on the REALLY REALLY basic. Which to me is (but you guys are way more experienced / smarter on this, and will do better at picking):

• Safety is primary and secondary. That is the one issue that your ROs, club helpers, etc will be "incessant" about, but that is OK. In my mind, the "biggies" are:
• Cold range: Go to a safety area to put your gun on. Next time you touch it is "Make Ready". You can load mags anywhere but in the safety area. This is one that is hard for me after shooting elsewhere. "unusual to USPSA"
• remember, you have at least 3 kinds of inexperienced. Folks that have never shot. Folks that have never shot USPSA. Both.
• Finger outside of trigger until actual shot, including moving in stage. I've taken a couple of people to the range in the last year -- this can take awhile.
• The 180, never sweep anyone with the barrel including yourself.
• "Make Ready" -- slam the mag home. Lots of people that don't shoot a lot with experienced people don't get this (I helped the lady next to me at lineup, Marla had trouble in stage). Not really safety ... but it causes flustering, which can lead to unsafe things.
• Talk to "your RO" about YOUR GUN -- I wouldn't even bother going through de-cockers, SAO/DAO, striker fired ... etc. DON'T CONFUSE THE NEW PEOPLE! Folks with Glocks and XDs don't even have to worry about any of this until they get a different gun, and by then they will know enough PIPs people so the biggest problem will be that "what do you think about shooting an XXXX?" will cost a major hunk of their lives, and they will know how to disassemble it, who designed it, who does speed packages on it, what the best grips for it are, where to buy,  ... how many versions of it Harmon owns, etc

Who is "Your RO"? I think it would be really cool to take "groups of 10" and match them up with an RO, RO in waiting, and a "minion or two". Then those groups STAY together for the outside session. The RO team takes their group to Safe Area ... maybe then brings each shooter in (or 2 or 3 each with a minion) ... look over the equipment. Talk about make ready procedure for that gun. Look at mags ... send them off to load if needed. Talk about only touch gun in safe area or "make ready", finger outside trigger, 180 ... whatever we want to stress.




Group goes to first stage -- RO and helpers focus on really new folks, either because they volunteered as new, or the RO/minions picked them out as needy.

RO has minion go to line, does a VERY deliberate run-through of the ENTIRE procedure that is coming up. (Both double taps). Focus on keys ... slam mag home, 180, finger outside trigger, holstering, clear, show empty, pull trigger down range ... cover any gun/holster safe issues, etc. I'd recommend putting up "ten" targets in some form on the "lineup" and shooting a couple of "double taps". Non USPSA shooters will likely have never done a DT. Clear the range. Have the minions go down and tape.

Group goes to 2nd stage -- AGAIN, have a minion go through exactly what will be done VERY deliberately. No attempts at speed. SLOW double taps, etc. Then take folks through based on volunteers or detected comfort level.

3rd stage ditto.

I think there was a big improvement from last year. We are looking like a "pro org" from what I see. My biggest criticisms revolve around too much "knowledge/experience/anecdote overload". We have core folks with bags and bags of knowledge, skill and experience. To a new person that is OBVIOUS -- and if it is overly expressed it becomes PAINFULLY obvious as in "how in the hell am I going to learn all this, and is the "barrier to fun" too high?  "Just the facts and slow" ... KISS.

I wrote on too much, didn't follow my own advice and gave the wrong impression. It was EXTREMELY well done. Looking forward to Wed night. THANKS.

BO on "Enough Money"

Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield

BO made $5.5 million last year, with a health plan that is beyond "Cadillac", security that is out of this world, multiple provided residences, free travel including the jet that no others complete with, multiple personal chefs, large staff, gym, personal theatre with any first run movies he desires, etc, etc, etc.

As the article points out, lots of his "close personal friends" and backers make in the $100s of millions.

Supposedly, Bush was "arrogant". Nothing even came close to this!

Doctors On BOcare

Why Physicians Oppose The Health Care Reform Bill - Forbes.com

Worth a read. My view:

I'd say the real reasons that Doctors oppose BOcare are:
1). They are intelligent
2). Their profession forces them to be reality based. Let's face it, they deal with mankind as it really is, not as some might wish it to be.

Life, intellect and all goods and services are scarce resources. Intelligence is very scarce, one wonders if wisdom even exists any more. The task is to allocate scarce resources, and I think deep down we all know that BOcare is not that way. Since Doctors are the ones closest to that reality on a day to day basis, they are faced with the cruel facts the soonest. Healthy people love government care. Sick people -- and doctors, hate it.

We learned in the '80s that there wasn't any "shortage" of gas in the '70's, only government controls on prices that prevented the market from allocating resources efficiently. The story is old -- the USSR was rife with it. The wrong products at the wrong places and "allocation" done by waiting in line (lowering productivity yet further). A cursory study of rent control shows the facts clearly -- it is often said that the only way to destroy housing faster is by bombing. Sadly, the N Vietnamese admitted that rent control in Hanoi was actually MORE effective at destroying housing than bombing, so liberals will take that as "economists wrong again".

Much like Democracy being really bad, but better than any other form of government (Churchill), we are already finding that while the market may be "bad", it has the saving grace of being better than anything else. One of the saddest aspects that we already see is that since everyone really knows in their gut that scarce resources must be allocated somehow, the knives are already being sharpened. We see that not only will they be allocated politically, but they will be allocated ruthlessly, by "51 votes", or whatever underhanded overbearing trick in the book can be used by the power mad left.

Markets are actually not "heartless" -- they are just a function of the hearts and minds of millions of people. While politicians may seem to be very friendly, they are certainly HEAVILY motivated by votes -- not to mention money, favors, power, greed, and all the other problems of being human. Since we have now decided to allocate one of the dearest scarce resources politically, the logical result is to decrease unity and increase political rancor.

As our government has continued to swell since the '30s, so has nastiness and division. The reason why is very simple. While the market is imperfect, at least we are all in that together. Once we move into political competition, the game becomes zero sum and the "rules" become less and less clear as the constitution, practices like the filibuster in the senate, the role of the supreme court, personal property, freedom of speech, and anything else that seems to stand in the way of the left is plowed down. BO indicated today that he supports congress acting to stop corporate freedom of speech. The issue of the court having the right to override congress was established when John Marshall was chief justice, it is called "Marbury vs Madison".

Being static isn't an option for a nation. I'd argue that we were in a "virtuous cycle" since '80, and in '06 we switched to a "death spiral". We've turned on the most productive among us. We've thrown the idea that we are a country of laws not of men away. The 20% that is driven by what they believe "ought to be" is firmly in control and they are blindly driving on the basis of their perceived ends rather on the basis of the known facts of man, the economy, law, morality, government nor anything else. They firmly believe that their ends justify any means -- but they lack understanding of what the known ends of their headlong rush for some ill defined dream of "equality, plenty, bliss" really are.

We may not survive until November.

A Conservative View of Deficits

Europe in Crisis - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest

Here is a nice bookend to yesterdays HuffPo post. Just give it a read and then decide if you are a liberal or a conservative thinker.

The Greek meltdown is on the surface just another financial crisis: yet another delusional country pursuing the path of least resistance has made promises it can’t keep to public and private sector workers.  Now the bill must be paid and the IMF called in to reorganize the national finances.

It is as if the rest of the world has failed to read HuffPo. Why would Greece not follow one of their many worthy "myth-busters" of why massive government deficit spending is never a problem? Could it be that it is actually the "economists" quoted by HuffPo that have no clue about reality?

The euro was a glorious fudge.  The Latin countries plus Greece could enjoy the benefits of German discipline and virtue while carrying on with traditionally unsustainable public and private sector policies.  In the old, pre-euro days, the southern economies had to pay high interest rates on their debt; wary investors knew that inflation and devaluation were likely and so demanded interest rates that would compensate them for the risk.  The lira, the drachma: everyone knew they would lose value over time against the Deutsche mark and even the dollar, and interest rates reflected this understanding.  But as the southern countries moved into the euro, calculations changed.  For the last twenty years, countries like Greece and Italy were able to borrow money at essentially the same rate that Germany could.

Think of sub-prime mortgages getting stirred into the credit markets of the world by freddie and fannie and all the crooked lenders of sub-primes in the same role as the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) and you get a good picture of how fallacy works. It doesn't take much rat feces to spoil a whole pot of soup -- especially once the clientele sees a video of the rat crapping in the pot.

Lousy leaders gave greedy civil servants fat raises; promises were cheap and the government scattered them far and wide.  In Italy as well, once the national debt was less painful to carry, there was less pressure to reduce the national debt.

Has anything ever sounded like current politics in America more? I actually think it does a disservice to lousy leaders to compare them with BO, but if the Gucci fits ...

Thinking Like a Liberal on Deficit

Lynn Parramore: The Deficit: Nine Myths We Can't Afford

I know this is from the HuffPo, so rational people don't even read it, BUT there are plenty of irrational people in the world, and I'll bet at least most of the 20% of folks that self-identify as liberal will buy SOME of this myth-busting.

I'm not going to bother to waste the time to refute of each of these on their own. If you even have any tendency to buy any of this, just consider that if it is really this rosy, every nation on earth as been a fool forever. Just spend spend spend with no constraint, cut taxes to zero, interest to zero, and the whole country can go on a lifetime bender and buy all they want on the proceeds -- at least if the "busting" hypothesis are true.

OTOH, if there IS such a thing as "fiscal gravity", we are still in grave peril, and even graver when you suspect that some of the idiots at the controls of our ship probably buy into this!

I Don't Skydive With Blacks

RealClearPolitics - Filtering History

Short, wise and entertaining. Just read it. One tease:

If the history of slavery ought to teach us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted with unbridled power over other human beings-- no matter what color or creed any of them are. The history of ancient despotism and modern totalitarianism practically shouts that same message from the blood-stained pages of history.

Learn it, live it, protect the 2nd amendment at ALL costs!!!

Tom Friedman's house

Next time you read something about how everything ought to be green by Tom, just remember where he lives. I assume that he just writes about the green stuff to make money -- I guess that is OK. The thing I never get about liberals is how once you say what they want to hear, they really could care less if you follow any of what the preach. As long as you are liberal, you can pollute all you want, own all you want, be as rich as you want, and treat "the little people" with complete disdain.

In this world, liberalism provides forgiveness of all that they might see as "sin", past, present and future, save the unforgivable sin. Turning conservative.

Something New in Jersey

George Will : The Thunder Roars in Trenton - Townhall.com

New Jersey has a Republican governor and he is already making a big difference.

Christie is using his power to remind New Jersey that wealth goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well-treated. Prosperous states are practicing, at the expense of slow learners like New Jersey, "entrepreneurial federalism" -- competing to have the most enticing business climate.

Imagine that. Wealthy people are liable to move away from states that tax them heavily to states that don't. How could they do such a thing?

In the state that has the nation's fourth-highest percentage (66) of public employees who are unionized, he has joined the struggle that will dominate the nation's domestic policymaking in this decade -- the struggle to break the ruinous collaboration between elected officials and unionized state and local workers whose affections the officials purchase with taxpayers' money.

Government workers now have the highest combination of wages and benefits in the nation. It is no longer "public service". The unholy alliance of unionized workers passing campaign money to Democrats in government so the Democrats can send more money back to unionized government workers has borne it's evil fruit.

Want to bet what BO would have to say about this? States ought not have any freedom to complete for business or wealth. All the money ought to just go into the feds so that the "wealthy" have no place to hide. "Freedom" to a Democrat is merely the ability to thumb your nose at any religious sorts of moral restrictions. The "right" to be bad. Free speech? Only if it agrees with them -- they constantly want Fox and Talk Radio muzzled. Right to bear arms? Guns are dangerous (to totalitarian politicians). Property? Maybe, as long as it is in exactly the quantity and quality that Democrats find to be "equal". Religion? Maybe -- if it is non-Christian, pretty much anything goes, but for Christians, only if you remain very very quiet.

Loss of Trust

RealClearPolitics - The Eradication of Trust

I like the honesty of this column, it provides a lot of insight into the liberal mind. 

Trust might as well be a four-letter word. American public opinion seems to have become an unguided Weapon of Mass Suspicion, and it's not hard to understand why. But those who would exploit distrust, dissatisfaction and anger for political gain had better worry about collateral damage.

I'm quite certain that Robinson looks back on Bush being "unelected", "blood for oil", "politics of Mass Deception", the HORRIBLE deficits of the early '00s, "Cheney and Haliburton", the supposed failure of the Bush admin at New Orleans, etc, etc as simply "factual" -- in his mind all those elements were NEEDED to give people the "TRUTH" about "the worst administration ever" ... loaded with incompetence, corruption, lies, cronyism, gross partisanship, and all manner of evil. I imagine he sees no irony whatsoever that now that the shoe is on the other foot, he finds "distrust of government" to be a very bad thing.

The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A "movement" that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, "constitutionalists" who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy "birthers" who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let's be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be "outsiders" is not a coherent intellectual or political force.

Had there ever been a war protest that even accounted to 1/10th of the Tea Party movement, we would have never seen anything else on TV. When poor deranged Cindy Sheehan was pretty much sitting alone outside Bush's ranch in Aug '05, she was one person national news! Millions of common working Americans with lots better things to to spend their time on getting out and protesting deficits in the $1.5 Trillion range for as far as we have estimates are of course "racists" -- there is simply no other reason one could be against those numbers. $400 Billion under Bush though?? HORRIBLE -- I'm sure I could go find Robinson screeching "Armageddon" back then as I've done pointed out forKrugman. What a difference a change of party makes to a true partisan.

The liberals always want us to note how "uncivil" anyone that disagrees with them is -- I'm sure all the depictions in Robinson's paragraph above are just 100% facts ... like the Michael Moore movies and the "Truthers" during the Bush admin.

Another story that won't go away is the pedophilia scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. On Sunday, during a visit to Malta, Pope Benedict XVI prayed with eight adult victims of childhood sexual abuse by priests and reportedly expressed his "shame and sorrow." But practically every day, there are new revelations of pedophile priests having been transferred to other parishes rather than being defrocked and reported to authorities.

It seems just a little disjoint to bring in the old Priests and boys story. This is a problem that pretty much goes back to the Greeks, and I'm sure before. There have been plenty of REPORTED "page scandals" in our own hallowed congress. The usual situation is as per normal "If Democrat, then "boys will be boys" --- or in this case, "some types of men like boys". If Republican, then horror, hypocrisy, out of office, maybe we ought to prosecute". Catholics generally vote Democrat, apparently them being a religious organization means that they have to be treated like Republicans by Robinson.

Republicans have been actively encouraging this groundswell of distrust on the theory that it's bad for incumbents, meaning Democrats. Indeed, the approval rating for the Democratic Party has plunged to 38 percent. The problem is that approval of the Republican Party has also fallen -- to 37 percent.

The moral here, for giddy GOP strategists, is the one about people who live in glass houses.

Now, when it was Democrats encouraging the "groundswell of distrust", did they not live in a glass house? or is Robinson's assertion that Fox and a few Tea Partiers are more mighty than the Democrats, MoveOn, the whole MSM and the code pink sort of movements put together?  More likely, like many in the culturally dominant liberal 20%, he simply believes he is completely right and the 80% is completely wrong. Like a fish, he can't define "all wet".

The Dying RINO

Who Killed the Responsible Republican? Bill Kristol, of course. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

From the left, a "Republican In Name Only" RINO is of course a "Responsible Republican. An RR to them is "almost as good as a Democrat".

Now when it comes to a DINO "Democrat in Name Only" -- Say Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller, how is their attitude? Actually, both Joe and Zell are pretty much "Dems" on a lot of things -- taxing the rich, supporting unions, lots of public works, etc. It is just that they "left the reservation" on what they thought of as "American" vs "Partisan" issues -- Winning the War on Terror, killing the unborn.

Yet again, we see that a "Responsible Republican" is a Republican that essentially always votes with the Democrats. For the Democrats however, there is no leeway -- you either tow their line all the way, or you are no Democrat at all.

If one followed the logic of this column, would that mean that there are no "responsible Democrats"? Seems right to me.

NYT and CBS Services

RealClearPolitics - The Populism of the Privileged

The New York Times and CBS News thus performed a public service last week with a careful study of just who is in the tea party movement.

The media that EJ finds to be "moderate" are somehow always providing a "service". They do such "careful studies".

This must be the first "populist" movement driven by a television network: Sixty-three percent of the tea party folks say they most watch Fox News "for information about politics and current events," compared with 23 percent of the country as a whole.

As I had to explain to one liberal at length, "correlation is not causality". Ice cream sales and drownings are correlated, but there is no causality relationship. If 100% of Tea Party folks watch Fox News, that doesn't say Fox is driving the Tea Party. It is quite easy for there to be MANY factors -- as in conservatives tend to watch Fox, maybe all the Tea Party folks are conservatives?

Is there any interest in what percentage of the MSM or other groups would be "the privileged"? Somehow I really doubt that EJ is very close to "middle  class", and there seems to be no problem that organizations like say "MoveOn.org" are funded by multi-billionaire George Soros. Soros made billions by betting against the US economy and the US dollar, but since he funds left wing activity, he is a hero. Somehow, if you aren't completely dirt poor and have graduated from High School, once you have any conservative ideas, you are "privileged". If you support conservative ideals and you ARE dirt poor with less than a HS education, then you are a racist. According to the MSM though, conservatism is a "big tent" -- we may be a motley crew of the privileged and the racist, but we are all a bunch of idiots, so at least we have THAT in common!

A Pew Research Center study released Sunday is thus a better guide than the tea parties' rants to the real nature of this nation's discontent. It found that only 22 percent of Americans say they can trust the government almost always or most of the time, "among the lowest measures in more than half a century." This mistrust extends beyond government to banks, financial institutions and large corporations.

So while the Tea Party is a bunch of privileged angry white men, somehow nearly 80% of Americans aren't trusting the shining BO, Harry&Nancy government -- shocking. I assume that EJ and his other 20% that self-identify as liberal still trust the government. Sounds like the Tea Party (according to EJ) accounts for 20%, so now we only have 60% of the country that aren't trusting government or institutions and aren't in the Tea Party.

Suppose EJ can get them to be Democrats if he calls them some names as well?