“Republican” Congress critter Thinks Climate Science is Just Like Surgery.

So, how about we arrange for a climate scientist to perform surgery on GOPee Rep. Benishek? Perhaps a vasectomy, gall bladder resection, or a colostomy? Dan Benishek, you see, thinks that since he is a surgeon, that makes him a “scientist”. He says so:

Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.) says his medical background qualifies him to reject the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that emissions from human activity are causing the planet to heat up. Pressed to address scientific findings to the contrary, Benishek claimed that no peer-reviewed climate change studies have been able “to prove that there’s man-made catastrophic global warming.”

As of 2013, 97 percent of more than 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers have concluded that human activity over the last century has contributed to global warming. Nearly 200 scientific organizations worldwide, including the American Medical Association, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences also endorse the consensus position.

“Well, I am a scientist,” said Benishek, who worked as a general surgeon for nearly 30 years before running for Congress in 2011. “You know, I believe in peer-reviewed science. But, I don’t see any peer-reviewed science that proves there is man-made catastrophic climate change.”

So, “studying the sciences” makes you a scientist, eh, boyo? That makes this writer a scientist, one supposes. Wow, who knew a couple of college classes (in between drinking bouts) made the Cranky One a scientist? Dang, the lucrative career opportunities that were foregone, because of the silly belief that one had to spend time and effort over a period of years in a specialty before declaring one’s self the master thereof.

And by the same token, if a surgeon is somehow automatically imbued with the ability to do all sciences of all types after graduating medical school, surely the same applies to anyone who has “studied the sciences”, yes? So, chemists should be performing brain transplants, physicists could easily do organ transplants, and astronomers could whip out heart bypasses without breaking a sweat. Right, Danny Boy?

If the distinguished gentleman really thinks that his medical education and time in the O.R. is truly the equivalent of advanced degrees and years of work in climatology and related disciplines, then let him show it. Volunteer to go under the knife as oceanographers and geologists demostrate their “scientific studies” on his internal organs. Put some skin in the game, if you’ll pardon the pun.

After all, the risk is much smaller: only Benishek would be at risk in this fantasy scenario. But the whole f***ing planet is at risk if we accept his “scientific” judgment on the all-too-real phenomenon of global climate change.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Kasich the Koward.

We already knew that Ohio’s Governor was a corrupt, wingnut, thieving, Wall Street millionaire, crony-centric, lying, money-laundering scumbucket. Now, we can add “huge f***ing wussy” to the list. Little Johnnie Kasich is too s***-scared to debate his gubernatorial opponent, you see. Here is an article on the issue:

“He’s not accepting the challenge because his handlers know that when the Governor is forced to speak on his feet he reveals his disdain for working Ohioans and he is unable to defend his record of helping his wealthy friends at the expense of Ohio’s middle class,” says Laura Hitt, FitzGerald’s campaign spokesperson.

But Kasich isn’t the only Ohio Republican ditching debates this year. Attorney General Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Jon Husted, and State Treasurer Josh Mandel have all declined to participate in the City Club of Cleveland’s debate series.

Mandel is a former U.S. Senate candidate with future statewide ambitions and Husted is often touted as a future gubernatorial prospect.

All of these boyos, like Kasich, are little Nancy-boys with not even a soupçon of testicular fortitude. Yes, they have things to hide, yes, they want to avoid being asked tough questions, but at the end of the day, they are cowards.

Kasich is secretive about how he stole some of his millions from the American taxpayer during the Bush Crash of 2008, he is secretive about the money he helps JobsOhio steal from Ohio taxpayers every day, he is secretive by reflex. Like all people who live criminal lives, he is petrified that someone might ask a question that will send him off to a much-deserved prison term. So he hides.

Kasich the Koward. A trembling, wimpy, pathetic, piss-poor excuse for a man. Too scared to debate. Kowardly Kasich.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

 

When Did the Media Turn Into Dumb, Useless Parrots?

Mr. Blunt and Cranky has noticed a disturbing trend (and he expects that you have, too) in media coverage of politicians: reporters simply repeat what the politico in question says verbatim, and almost never call “bullshit” on them, either during the event or during the stories that they later write.

A classic example came a few days ago, when Mitt Romney said that no one dies in America because they lack health insurance: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html

Lots of people (including this writer know better), and it took less than a minute to pull up a study proving the exact opposite:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

One person every 12 minutes croaks because they don’t have health insurance. Surely reporters have smartphones and could have found the information during a press conference, and called Mitt on his statement. But nooooooo.

The majority of reporters have become nothing more than parrots: senselessly repeating whatever they have been trained to squawk in exchange for crackers, grubs, dung beetles, or whatever tasty treat they prefer. Frankly, if that is all they are going to do for their pay, we may as well fire the lot of them. Then we could just point microphones at the crooked scumbucket politicians and stream it live. We wouldn’t be any less informed that way.

Mr. B & C

Mitt Romney Won by Lying? In What Other Arena can One Cheat and Still Win?

In coverage of the first Presidential Debate of 2012, even though Mitt Romney told more lies than Barack Obama,  he was judged the winner because he was aggressive. Never mind the substance, never mind the falsehoods, flip-flops, the breaking of the debate rules; none of that matters to the media, who judged Romney the “Winner”.

By using such logic: John Dillinger made a number of successful bank withdrawals; Jeffrey Dahmer was a chef; Charles Manson was a philosopher; Jim Jones was a wonderful charismatic preacher; and Adolf Hitler was a genetic scientist.

Seriously, how did this country get to the point where honesty, integrity, and the rule of law do not apply to politics? Politicians lie, steal, and cheat, and far too many of us re-elect them anyway. And they rightly take that re-election as permission to act in manners that are even more corrupt. And the media plays right into the hands of these scumbuckets, by focusing on stories and people who add to their profit margins instead of promulgating accurate information.

Yes, Obama sucks at debate. As we have seen before, he brings a rubber chicken to a gun fight, and never seems to learn that “republicans” are not an honest, honorable, law-abiding party. So he gets pummeled in the eyes of the uniformed because he refuses to recognize how big a lot of sociopathic scuzballs his opponents are. But that does not mean that Romney should be judged the “winner” of a contest when he cheated outrageously during said event.

The media as a whole (and the debate moderator) are making the NFL Replacement referees look good. That is how bad the parties and the media have gotten.

Mr. B & C

Promises are Worth Their Weight in Gold

Think for a minute: Imagine Mr. Blunt and Cranky saying to you, “I promise to be nicer”. How much do those words weigh, traveling through the air? If you answered “nothing”, you’d pretty much be right. So gold times zero equals….yep, zero. So, that’s how much a promise is worth.

In addition, what does “nicer” mean? Kind of vague, you might say, and again you’d be right. So, in addition to being worthless, that hypothetical promise means nothing. Plus, given his track record, do you really believe he’ll be less blunt and cranky? One would hope you don’t.

While reading the fact-check websites from last night’s debate, this writer is reminded of the old adage  quoted in the title of today’s post: Romney made many promises, and they pretty much exemplify both the weightlessness and vagueness that gave rise to the adage. He also is looking pretty crap on the fact-checking websites (more on that tomorrow), which makes his promises even less valuable.

Obama, on the other hand, proved (once again) that he is an inept debater when it comes to style, but told fewer whoppers and made far fewer promises. And of the promises made in 2008? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57505315/obamas-2008-promises-kept-or-broken-/?pageNum=6&tag=page  is a good list of them, and shows that he has actually done pretty well; indeed, some of the promises not kept were due to congressional squabbling and not because the Prexy did not push them.

Promises, promises. We all make them, and their only worth is in how they are kept. Romney has changed positions, lied, blown off fact-checkers and made promises that mathematics prove cannot possibly be kept. Obama has tried to keep his promises, and (so far) at least kept the majority of them.

Mr. B& C