Calling All Wingnuts

“It’s just not sound science.”

Yeah, that’s what I expected to hear when I went to a Federalist Society’s event that featured Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Well, that’s not what he said. I’m not really sure what he said, actually. And I think that’s the point.

You see, there’s a new tactic being used by those obsessed with Al Gore and new ways of obtaining Exxon-Mobil’s money.

Confuse. Confuse. Confuse.

It works like this:

Global warming is a huge, multidisciplinary science involving atmospheric scientists, astronomers, biologists, ecologists, physicists, chemists and a whole bunch of scholars that come with 6-syllable titles I just can’t pronounce. For me, and just about everyone else, we’re forced to accept that we can’t possibly know everything, but when over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers are published and they all point to the same conclusion, well… we trust that the scientists are correct.

Not the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Instead, they look at the forest, find a mushroom and say, “Sheesh, that’s not a tree!! How can this possibly be a forest? Oh, I see… well, so it is. Aha! That proves my I think point!! This mushroom is growing on a dead tree! This forest cannot possibly be a threat if the trees are dead! In fact, this dead tree makes for wonderful fertilizer. We should all celebrate dead trees!! Oh, yes, I see. There are a lot of live, sturdy trees around here, aren’t there? Well, you know, all the same, this isn’t a forest - it’s merely a grove. And, by the way, if it was a forest, it’d cost a lot of money to chop it down.”

Seriously. That’s Myron Ebell’s strength of argument.

He points to data point after disputed data point (the mushrooms) in his efforts to intimate that global warming may not be real. You rebut his data, or present irrefutable data of their own (the tree the mushroom is growing upon), and he moves the goal-posts to suggest that even though global warming is real, it’s certainly no threat requiring any kind of action. In fact, if global warming is real, we’re going to witness a wonderful resurgence of plant life and biodiversity as the carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures combine to form a vigorous greenhouse effect!! (the fertilizer argument). You bring him back to earth by mentioning the migrating parasitic species, deadly heat waves, dying coral reefs and increased freak weather spells (sturdy trees). He minimizes the troubles (cold kills more people than heat, changing climate brings opportunity as well as costs, etc) and falls back on his favorite war-horse - the cost implications of actually doing something about the problem.

I sat through nearly two hours of that pattern playing Solitaire on my computer. You see, I know the right. I expected this treatment.

I was mildly disappointed that the allies I brought with me to the discussion insisted on asking policy, scientific or political questions that Mr. Ebell was clearly well prepared to parry. This is after all, what he does for a living. Like an octopus, he’s particularly adept at clouding the waters with ink. Which made it particularly funny in an ironic sort of way when a pen exploded in his pocket just before he took my question.

He had run out of ink!

“Mr. Ebell, I’m sorry, but I feel like I walked in on you in bed with my wife and you just spent the last two hours asking me if I was going to believe me or my lying eyes.” The crowd (and remember, this was a Federalist Society event) chortled.

“I mean, heat waves killed hundreds or thousands in Europe and Chicago. Coral reefs are dying off. Bark beetles are devastating forests they’ve never been found in before because the temperatures were to cold to sustain them. I don’t have to go through it all, you’ve heard it all before… data point after data point after data point says global warming is a problem.”

“Further, Exxon-Mobil recently admitted to spending $16 million dollars to cloud the science - to propagandize against global warming. And your firm, the supposedly non-partisan Competitive Enterprise Institute was one of the greatest recipients.”

“Which leads me to my next point - your claim of non-partisanship. I’ve heard Senator Inhofe, Richard Pombo, Tom delay when he was there and many others mis-state the science, often while quoting your organization. But I’m looking at your web-page right now, and I see story after story that supposedly debunks Al Gore. Why haven’t you ever had anything bad to say about a Republican? Because to a simple guy like me, well, when I look at the big picture, it looks as if you folks care less about the truth than you do about furthering a pro-business agenda.”

{This is when Mr. Ebell excused himself to wipe the ink off his hands. He turns to address my questions in reverse order.}

First he claimed that, “Oh my gosh, I welcome your examination of my motives, but we are a very small operation. When you compare our resources to NRDC, Sierra Club and Greenpeace’s, well, we just can’t afford to chase down every inaccuracy and we really need to focus…”

I interrupted: “You mean, Exxon/Mobil doesn’t have enough money to get their message out?” (More laughter.)

“Well, I don’t know…”

Me again: “Didn’t they just break every record for quarterly profit by any company, ever, in any quarter, ever?”

“Uhm, yeah, they may have, but it is good that you ask these questions and I think you should be. But you know, cold kills a lot more people than heat, so while we may have the heat waves, humans are adapting at living in heat much better. Not too many people are moving to Minnesota or North Dakota, but Phoenix is booming.”

I couldn’t take it, “Wait a minute - are you standing next to my bed in my bedroom asking me how you could possibly be sleeping with my wife while wearing those ridiculous underwear?” More laughs.

Mr. Ebell was a professional though. He stuck to his script and refused to be thrown off. He was rattled - he clearly isn’t used to being held accountable in such a broad, expansive way. He’s much more comfortable arguing the nuances, highlighting outlying studies and pointing up micro-inconsistencies that support his case. So that’s what he went back to doing.

Upon reflection, I really think there are a couple of lessons for progressives to be found in this five minute exchange.

First of all, when arguing with somebody that either has no credibility or is not arguing a credible position, don’t donate the credibility they need to be seen as your equal.

You see, by calling his credibility into question immediately - and not letting him up for air - well, I’ve got no proof, but I really think that everyone in the room knew that Mr. Ebell had been bettered. When we ask policy or science questions of these charlatans, we give the impression that we care what they think. We don’t. We know they are rank liars, we’re just wondering if they’ll be able to spin a sufficient answer. But these guys get millions of dollars a year from the largest corporate titans precisely because they have the skill to ink up the issue. Why let them show off?

Secondly, don’t go out of your way to be nice or polite. Hell, I won’t afford these profit-gandists any respect on my blog, why the hell should I do it face to face? A large part of their professional career derives from their ability to mock me and the things I believe in. The Competitive Enterprise Institute once liked global warming to “being invaded by space aliens” for example. By addressing these people with the indignant scorn they deserve, you project the moral superiority of your position. To many times it seems that Democratic and progressive pundits are more interested in being our opponents friends than we are in vigorously arguing the issues. In this media environment - when equal time is given to global warming deniers… well, we just can’t afford the small talk.

In the end, these guys are not good people. This isn’t a case of principled people disagreeing. At this point in the global warming debate, the only principled disagreements to be had revolve around what we should be doing to address the crisis. The Myron Ebells of the world - the die-hard denialists… well, we need to move them off the stage by marginalizing them at every opportunity.

John McCain was on Bill Bennet’s show this morning claiming that some parts of Baghdad are safe enough for him and Bill to take a walk in… it comes at the end of the call…

Previously in the call, he mentioned that the reason we need to stay is that, unlike Vietnam, “these guys want to follow us home… It’s not Iraq they’re after, it’s us!” I left that part in the audio because it is so clearly demonstrative of exactly how far McCain has fallen in his willingness to pander to Michelle Malkin’s crowd…

CallingAllWingnuts will continue to evolve over time…

I’m approaching finals season and just won’t have the time to do a lot of resource intensive blogging…  That means fewer phone calls…  Instead, we’re gonna hafta make do with me providing the occasional uniquely boring analysis and tepid commentary with a lot of typos….

But please keep coming back!

Anyway, here’s an interesting bit for you - from friend and fighting colleague, Cliff Schecter…

Larson always has some great guests and often they’ll take phone calls.

A coupla days ago, he had Lis Wiehl, Loofa O’Falafel’s radio show co-host and Fox News contributor on - and she took a call from me.

She was there to plug her book, The Fifty-one Percent Minority, a book with a feminist slant.

Wiehl is no slouch in terms of her personal achievements. She’s an adjunct professor at New York Law School and a Harvard Law graduate…

So… after hours of O’Falafel make crude and derogatory jokes at her own and other women’s expense, I thought it was time to ask her a pointed question.

Even Lars thought it was funny.

The beginning is Lars asking a question during the break. Evidently, it’s standard procedure to webcast the discussions he has on the telephone during commercial breaks. The last half (the whole clip is only two and a half minutes or so) is me softening up the target before springing the question I really called to ask…

Enjoy.

I chatted with Frank Gaffney when he was a guest on the Lars Larson show. Later, I went and found the webcast. I’m not sure if Lars did this on purpose or not, but he webcast the conversation he had with Gaffney when the show went to commercial… Some interesting stuff in here - a real window into the right-wing conspiracy…

Larson bashes Thom Hartman… but the real juicy stuff comes when he talks about what he had to do to get O’Reilly to come out and see him… Why is it juicy? Because about two weeks later, Mike Wallace interviewed O’Reilly for 60 Minutes. Let’s go to the transcript.

And about the environment? “Government’s gotta be proactive on environment,” says O’Reilly. “Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn’t here. That’s ridiculous.”

…

And, he says, he’s just a regular guy from Long Island, despite the fact that he makes an estimated $10 million each year from TV, radio and print.

“You’re addicted. You are addicted to the power. You are addicted to the money,” Wallace remarks. “You are addicted to the fact that ‘I am Bill O’Reilly, and everybody knows it.’”

O’Reilly’s response?

“Dr. Phil is back. How did he get in the room? You’re crazy,” says O’Reilly. “I couldn’t care less about Bill O’Reilly being known in Iowa. Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t throw my weight around. I’m not partying with Puff Daddy. I’m not cuttin’ a line. I’m not drivin’ a Mercedes Benz.”

Again, for the record, his wife has a Mercedes, but he says he won’t get in it. Bottom line though, he is one of the most provocative news figures in America. And for him, that’s enough.

So the news - the audio bears this out - that Mr. Falafel won’t fly commercial - that Mr. Environmental republican insists on a private jet to do any sort of guest appearance… well, that’s just a tad hypocritical, dontchya think?

The second half of the recording is me arguing with Gaffney and Larson about whether or not it would be a good thing to kill liberals…

I’m such an Atrios thief.

Sue me.

So I was going to try to ask all the candidates how old they thought the earth was.

Is it 6,000 years old as the fundie base claims?

Or is it 4 billion years old as every sane person in the world accepts?

Well, you know me - I had to get there kind of circuitously; I couldn’t just come right out and ask the question.

Man, was I surprised at the answer I got…

Duncan Hunter said - I’m not kidding - you can hear it yourself, “the complexities of life manifest something more than a half-assed creation.”

I think we have a commercial!

[UPDATE] A few people have suggested that I got the quote wrong - that Hunter said “half-baked” or something like that.  I guess I could be wrong, but it certainly wasn’t intentional.  Listening through my computer speakers - at least 4-5 times - I heard “half-assed”.  So I guess this isn’t the “oooh, snap!” I thought it was…  well, lessee what else I’ve got…

This is actually a bit of a test post. I’ve always ftp’d audio to the site which made it possible to plug audio into that neat widget… but I haven’t gotten the ftp functionality back yet, so… I’m trying this. If you click on the link below, hopefully you’ll get some nice audio of a couple of College Republican women for Romney sign holders telling me what they think about Romney’s kids…

They’re the ones that won’t…

Really, honestly and truly… The best they’ve got are certifiable. This conversation proves it… Racist? I’m still scratching my head, amused…

Anyway, I asked her why she didn’t answer my emails about Walter Reed… That’s when panic set in. I was going to keep these private because I’m not sure it’s necessarily the right thing to do to use the Walter Reed scandal to score political points, but hell, maybe shame will work on the bastards. On February 25, I sent this email to Michelle (subject: let’s transcend politics for this):

Alright, I know how you feel about the MSM…

But the fact is that we can do better for our vets. There’s no doubt - none at all - that Vietnam vets have really been left behind and forgotten by “the system”.

We - if we have any decency left in us after all of our political animus - have to do our part to make sure the new generation of vets doesn’t get treated the same way.

I’m not talking about “spitting on the troops” or any kind of individual slights.

Michelle - as a former Marine (’85-90) - my heart breaks when I read the Newsweek and Wash Post stories about the wounded.

I have a friend that has a brother that was wounded in Iraq when he had to take his chopper down hard. He cracked a coupla lumbar vertebrae and tore up his knee when they ripped him out of the bird… He’s recovered and now the family’s greatest fear is that he’ll be sent back for a third tour.

Anyway, when I was talking with this friend, he teared up over the Washington Post article. He’s motivated to do something. I’ve offered my assistance.

He’s suggested a fundraiser for one of the established charities - and we’re also kicking around the idea of forming an organization to provide pro bono legal services to vets that need them.

Both ideas are worthy as far as they go.

This is part of what I wrote back to him:

I’m fairly starry-eyed when it comes to these things. I don’t think I’m the person to be any kind of public face for the effort (that’s why I went to Scott and Doug [redacted] (the retired pilot)), but do you think there is a way to either hook up with VFW - or Paul Rieckhoff’s group, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)?I’m wondering if I could use my network to create some momentum and buzz online for the establishment of a nationwide network of advocates that affiliates with one or another of the aforementioned groups. You, and your colleagues could add a lot of legitimacy to the effort. Scott and Doug have indicated a willingness to jump in with both feet (I can see them leading the student efforts). I’m fairly certain that I could reach some people in DC and in the blogosphere that would lend whatever support they could.One more thing… Something that I’ve really come to believe is that giving to charity - unless you are helping an individual - is really so much pissing in the wind. If you want real change, the way to do it is through politics. My basic thought pattern is that when a lobbyist can purchase a 50 million dollar contract with $100,000 in campaign donations, my $100 to any given charity is pretty insignificant. On the other hand, if we can find a way to pressure our pols to do the right thing for vets, well, their control of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are approved in every budget can make a real difference.So anything that gets done… well, I hope we can find a way to make some changes of a permanent nature…

Please don’t take this the wrong way - I know putting underwear and sweatpants on a vet that had his clothes torn off on the battlefield will make an incredible difference that is priceless in and of itself… but… you and I both know that this is not something that should be falling to you and I to take care of. So if we can find a way to use the law community to advocate more widely - well, I’d really like to see that.

Michelle - this is something where we can really make a difference. You’re a leader on your side of blogs… I know I’ve got people that will work with me to start the blogswarm that defines blogswarm in next year’s dictionaries. Is this something you’d consider getting behind?

One last thing: I haven’t made my mind up entirely, but I’m thinking that your constituency will probably not respect you any more for working with me. If you decide to jump aboard, I don’t think this is something that needs to be formalized (our behind the scenes talks). On the other hand, dropping any notions of “who really supports the troops” and actually working in good faith to embarrass our politicians into falling all over themselves to outdo one another with regards to “who really supports the troops” would definitely be a good thing… anyway, what I’m trying to say is that we can do this together or separately, but I’d love to hear from you that you’d flog your network to make this issue one that receives maximum attention when Congress gets back.

Please let me know what you think.

Best regards and thanks for your consideration,
Mike Stark

Anyway, I never heard back from her.

When I told her my name at first, I think it is conceivable that she didn’t recognize it. But when I mentioned that I was Mike Stark that asked George Allen about his arrest record and wife, it was perfectly clear that she recalled who I was, despite her protestations to the contrary. Further, you can hear her pissant lackey speak up in recognition…

Oh - and by the way… did y’all catch her taking the Lord Jesus Christ’s name in vain? Tsk tsk…

In the meantime, check this out. It’s the folks at The Nation pretty much doing what I did… only on video…

Listen, I just got back to my wife and baby, so I’ve been hanging out with them. I posted all my easy stuff last night - everything else requires some kind of editing and/or learning curve for me to post. I’ve got one or two posts in the can coming right after this one, the rest will have to wait until I put the baby to bed tonight…

Stay tuned…

Oh - wait a minute… this audio is Ms. Manners, language police extraordinaire, mother of two and this generation’s closest incarnation of the Virgin Mary… yes, that’s right… this is Michelle Malkin chatting with me before I told her who I am, but after Max punked her at her booth.

[UPDATE]  Somebody is asking what she called the folks from the Nation…  regrettably, the audio isn’t as crystal clear as I would like…  But I remember Malkin, at least, using the naughty words “chickenshit” and “assholes” - and then apologizing for her bad language.

Sorry, Michelle, too late…  my mother-fucking ears were already soiled.