Framing ignorant vs. educated as a debate

Great New Rules segment by Bill Maher a few days ago.  The good stuff is at about the 2:20 point on in the clip.


Watch New Rules 6/4/10 in Entertainment  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

"That's the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally -- especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesn't know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head.

There is no debate here -- just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote. We shouldn't decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it ...

... Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate." The other day, I saw a professor from the Union of Concerned Scientists face off against a distinguished expert on Tea Partying, whose brilliant analysis, recently published in the New England Journal of Grasping at Straws, was that we shouldn't teach climate science in schools because kids find it scary. As they should. I hope they're peeing in their pants.

The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory. As is gravity. For progress to happen, certain things have to become not an issue anymore, so we can go on to the next issue. Evolution was an issue until overwhelming consensus among scientists made it not an issue ..."

"I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses." -- German astronmer Johannes Kepler

Snowmageddon

I think if I have one more client say to me, "so much for global warming", in response to the snowstorms on the East coast, I may go on a killing spree. Seriously, people, we can't afford to be this obtuse. I know you believe something must be true if Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck say it is so. I know it's confusing for you. After all you have trusted academics like James Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Crichton one one side and 97% of the world's climatologists on the other.

It's like the game you play with babies where they think you've disappeared if you cover your face. Life ain't a game of "peek-a-boo". A snow-storm does not mitigate a preponderance of historical data. Actually the opposite,

... climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe told The New York Times that the recent weather furthered doubts over whether climate change is "unequivocal" or a human-made phenomenon.

If anything, though, the weather should help dispel those doubts, contend major climate scientists and activists.

"Record snow is not in any way, shape, or form evidence against climate science and in fact it is largely consistent with it," Joseph Romm, a former Energy Department official in President Bill Clinton's administration ...

"I wouldn't want to say global warming is the cause or the sole cause [of the snowstorms]but we are in a warming trend," he said. "It is absurd when we are in an overall warming trend that a snowstorm is evidence of a cooling trend. But the anti-science side – the ideologues – have been trying to push the idea that we're in a cooling trend and that this is evidence of that."

In fact, increased snowfall is entirely in line with climate projections, said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with WeatherUnderground.com.

... Romm agrees. "You heat up the planet and you put more moisture in the atmosphere, you get the more intense precipitation that has been observed globally and has been observed in the United States," he said.

But people believe what they want to believe or that they have a vested interest in believing. No point in letting the truth getting in the way.

I Wish They Were Right

Cartoon of the Day

by Jim Toomey at The Cartoonist Group and Center for American Progress

Going Green - Update

I haven't updated you lately on our attempts to reduce our ecological footprint, but it's been going well. We've always watched the electricity we used - setting the thermostat lower in winter, higher in summer; having high-efficiency appliances, using CFL's, etc. - so it was a big surprise when we received our year-end electrical usage statement for '07:


For 11 out of 12 months, we had reduced usage from the year before despite the fact that we were already well below the average usage for a house of our size going in. It goes to show you that if you think you are already conserving enough, there is always more room for improvement.

We're in month 3 of having just one car and we are settling into a groove with it. It has us seriously debating whether we need to replace the 2nd car at all. Our fuel costs have went down by about $50 a month, and our car insurance costs by the same amount. And there's been no harmful effect on either of our jobs, or Alex's school. But it's still up in the air. We'll probably give it about another month and will decide for good what we'll do.

Just around the house, our use of cloth napkins and the purchase of bulk, concentrated and good for the environment products has progressed to the point that when we set out our garbage and recycle bins for pick-up each week, the garbage is about a fifth full and the recycle bin is overflowing. Two of our favorite products -- Mrs. Meyer's Dish Soap and Shaklee Get Clean Fresh Laundry.

Alex's fragile little mind has been so warped by our treehugger ways that he is quick to call us on any of our missteps and encourage us back on to the path. It would have been ironic if we had spawned a miniature Republican (a la Family Ties and a different Alex), but it looks like we are safe.

Next up is probably exterior solar screens before the heat of summer. Hopefully, we'll reduce our costs even more in the next year.

Doing what's right doesn't have to be expensive. It can and should be the opposite. Those people that waste and pollute and proudly drive around their huge SUV's because they think it makes them look "American" and "free" will go the way of the dinosaur. They don't want to be perceived as weak or environmental or European. But society will eventually weed out their kind of stupidity.

The Police - Walking In Your Footsteps

Fifty million years ago
You walked upon the planet so,
Lord of all that you could see
Just a little bit like me,

Walking in your footsteps ...

Hey Mr. Dinosaur
You really couldn't ask for more.
You were God's favorite creature,
But you didn't have a future,

Walking in your footsteps ...

Hey there mighty brontosaurus
Don't you have a message for us.
You thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
You were built three stories high
They say you would not hurt a fly
If we explode the atom bomb,
Would they say that we were dumb.

Walking in your footsteps ...

Fifty million years ago
They walked upon the planet so
They live in a museum
It's the only place you'll see 'em.

Walking in your footsteps

They say the meek shall inherit the earth....

Congrats Al!

2007 Nobel Peace Prizes to:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - Geneva, Switzerland

Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. - USA

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Going Green - Update

We cannot command Nature except by obeying her. -- Francis Bacon

Our latest attempts at greening up:

Mrs. Myer's Dryer Sheets - which you can get at Sprout's

Shaklee Laundry Soap

both biodegradable.

I'm proud that our earlier attempts are going as strong as ever (cloth napkins, grocery bags). BTW, I highly recommend IKEA's reusable bags for 59 cents. They're huge and sturdy. Several grocery stores (including Fry's here in the Valley) will give you a discount for using your own bags.

If we had any guts, we'd actually hang our clothes to dry instead of using our dryer. But, Noooo! -- we have to justify the money we spent on it in the first place. I know ... that sounds stupid. Kinda like saying that you are not going to read a book because you've paid for that perfectly good TV and cable and you don't want it to go to waste.

The biggest impediment to change is not the technology or even the cost. It's retraining ourselves. It's no wonder that a large part of society doesn't understand this when our own leaders preach consumerism (instead of conservation) in the face of tragedy. God forbid that any of us would ever make a sacrifice for the common good. Oops! I said "common good". I must be a Communist.


Also, go check out Leo's environment documentary, The 11th Hour, soon. I haven't seen it yet but will within the next week. If you've already seen it, post a review here.

Bio-hype

As much as you hear politicians talking about it(both D's and R's), you would think that ethanol is the answer to all of our energy and pollution problems. Well, not so fast. It's more about courting votes in the pivotal Midwest (specifically Iowa). Ethanol, in general, is not necessarily the problem. It's the specific type ... corn. From Sierra Magazine:

In our beautiful biofuel future, cars and trucks are powered by wood chips, prairie grass, wheat straw, fast-food grease, garbage, and even algae--whichever material is most plentiful locally and least damaging environmentally. With cars getting 40 miles a gallon or better, greenhouse-gas emissions plummet. The biofuel revolution sparks an economic boom by keeping U.S. dollars at home instead of sending them to Middle Eastern sheikhs.

Biofuels can be made from nearly any organic material. By essentially recycling carbon from living things (as opposed to the ancient biomass in coal and petroleum), biofuels help fight global warming. But some could also add to our environmental problems: In an equally possible but less rosy future, governments and agribusiness clear rainforests and wetlands for vast plantations of biofuel crops like oil palms. With arable land increasingly devoted to fuel production, food prices push higher. The roads clog with biofuel SUVs that still get lousy mileage. Global warming slows insignificantly, if at all.

... corn is the source of 95 percent of the United States' ethanol. Although politically popular in farm states, corn is a problematic source of fuel: It requires good land and petroleum-intensive cultivation and fertilization, and it can also readily feed both humans and livestock. (Food prices are already increasing because of competition with ethanol.) If the mill processing the corn is powered by coal, ethanol produces more net greenhouse gases than gasoline does ...

... Putting a dent in global warming requires conservation as well as biofuels. A 3 percent increase in fuel-economy standards for vehicles, for example, would save more gas than the entire 2006 production of corn ethanol. Sadly, we've been driving in reverse: For the past five years, U.S. gasoline consumption has increased by 1.4 percent annually, and diesel by 3.6 percent.

The rush to biofuels is putting the squeeze on wildlife. Nearly 40 million acres of farmland are currently idled under the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which seeks to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality, and provide habitat. The Bush administration has proposed that land set aside under the program be converted to fuel production ...

The answer is to think of it more as a global issue and an engineering issue instead of a political one. We need to stop thinking we can just trade kissing the ass of big oil for kissing the ass of companies like ADM and Monsanto. Ethanol can be part of the answer if done in the right way:

The best sources of biomass for fuel are waste products and native perennial grasses, which provide more usable energy per acre than corn ethanol or soybean diesel. In fact, says a report by the University of Minnesota, fuels made from native plants can actually be "carbon negative," because they store excess carbon dioxide in their roots and the surrounding soil, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But here's the kicker, and why I am against corn-based ethanol as the whole answer -- It's raising the cost of my beer:

Here's where some get off the biofuel bus: It's raising the price of beer. In Germany, subsidies for corn and rapeseed production are squeezing production of barley--an important ingredient in the national beverage. The effects of higher barley prices are starting to appear at the tap. The price of a liter mug of beer at this year's Oktoberfest, for example, will be up by 5.5 percent.

Going Green - Update

• ## With us being out of the house continuously from about 7:45 am to 5 pm each day (and with daytime outside temps hitting triple digits), we're now turning the thermostat up to 86 during the day. The A/C hardly comes on during the day and it's fairly easy to get it down in temp when we get home.


• ## We made our first grocery shopping trip in which we exclusively used our canvas bags (instead of plastic). We've had about 4 or 5 of them for awhile but we always forget about taking them. The clerks at Fry's looked at us kinda funny but obliged by bagging the groceries in them. If we were at Sprouts, it wouldn't have been odd ... but at Fry's, I'm sure we were probably the first customers that had asked for that. Of course, they could have been looking at us funny because we looked like stereotypical liberals with me in my Rage shirt and the wife in her Amnesty International one. Oh well.

Global Warming - Alternate View

In the interest of full disclosure and because I am not afraid of an open forum of ideas, please check out The Great Global Warming Swindle at my buddy Scott's blog. Scott's a nutty pro-business anarchist (lol), but I like him anyway because he's at least honest and consistent in his skewed worldview. And, painfully, we occasssionally agree on something ... just not in this case.

Check out his post before continuing because I don't want to taint you with my take on the video ....

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Alright, all done? 75 minutes later, or maybe you skipped through it. My complaints:

- like other anti-global warming adherants, Patrick Moore, to a large part, lets commerce dictate his science -- He's a paid mouthpiece for the timber and plastics industries.

- Several of the scientists that actually appeared in the video have questioned the manner in which their interviews were used and taken out of context, most notably that of Carl Wunsch: - Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4

Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."

- "Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon." - from PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

- Scientists appearing in the video have received funding from and have been expert witnesses in court cases for: Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal, Sun, Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America, Western Fuel Association, coal companies, fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition

- There are many distortions and misrepresentations in the film that have caused even the original channel that aired it to distance itself - Channel 4 Distances Itself From Documentary

For more problems with the program, check out Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle

Who Killed the Electric Car? / Global Warming

We watched a great documentary today, Who Killed the Electric Car?. It goes into to the various agencies and conditions that contributed to the demise of the popular GM electric car, the EV1. A girl that I used to work with leased an EV1 and loved it but were forced to give up their car at the end of the lease and had no option of buying it. Despite how much my friends and others loved their cars, GM took all of them back and destroyed them.

Many things contributed to the EV1 and other electric cars being phased out, including energy companies, the auto industry and a government in bed with both of them. But also consumers with a myopic view of the future and a desire to have the biggest, least efficient vehicles possible.

The movie is pretty even-handed and gives both sides opportunities to state their case. But ultimately, even the words of the auto companies themselves expose the real agenda. Grade: B+

===================================================================

from: Global Warming Cartoons

In a related vein, I caught a bit of the congressional hearings on global warming. My observations:

If you have the preponderence of scientific evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientific minds firmly in your camp, who do you march out in front of Congress to speak on the dangers of global warming ... Al Gore, of course. A person accustomed to speaking before Congress and a man with more than 30 years of interest and involvement in the environment.

What do you do if you are on the other side, with the flat-earthers, with one of your biggest advocates being the man who wrote Jurassic Park? You march out a parade of clowns who couldn't find their asses with two hands and a flashlight:

Texas Republican congressman Joe Barton, who has in the past regaled us with such gems as:

"I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter."

"As long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that." — Congressional hearing entitled, "National Energy Policy: Coal" Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality (March 14, 2001)

and this week,

"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," - to Mr. Gore.

I try not to sink to ad hominem attacks, but the lack of quality and credibility of these critics directly comes to bear on the issue:

'Mr. Barton, a member of the Republican Study Committee, which promotes "the preservation of traditional family values", Barton divorced his first wife, the former Janet Sue Winslow, with whom he has three children, in 2003.'

This group pushes conservative themes and is promoting the Marriage Protection Amendment. I find it sickening how many people that push this amendment on religious grounds have no problem divorcing, an issue that was talked about a whole lot more in the Bible than homosexuality.

Opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.

People like Barton and his ilk disgust me. Their angle on global warming is so predictable, it's painful. Guess where the most campaign contributions for Barton have came from ($2 million and counting) ... energy companies and their PAC's.


Oklahoma senator James Inhofe:

famous for being outraged at people that were outraged about Abu Graib

In 2006, Inhofe was one of only nine senators to vote against the McCain Detainee Amendment banning torture on individuals in U.S. Government custody

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2004 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

He believes in god dictating policy: "I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk."

Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

No, actually, the first and second largest hoaxes in history would be yours and Joe Barton's tenures in Washington. So, to you two, I say, "You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong."

Quick Hits

• Is it just me, or is this really ironic? -- Bush's $500 Million Library
  From Huffington Post:
  

  "...The idea of Uncurious George building a $500 million shrine to his disastrous presidency is the political equivalent of a whoopee cushion; a veritable laff riot. The punchlines write themselves:
  
  A George W. Bush Library? What's it going to house, 100,000 copies of The Pet Goat -- with some Shakespeares and a Camus thrown in for good measure?"

==================================================

• Let me get this straight ... a silver-spoon in his mouth legacy who partied through his military service has the gall to define the terms in which a proud father can speak of his son serving in Iraq? Bush, Webb in testy exchange over Senator-elect's soldier son
  W, you pompous ass. That would have been sweet if Mr. Webb had popped W in the chops. Someone needs to.

==================================================


• Speaking of pompous asses: High Court Divided on Warming.
  

  "When is the predicted cataclysm?" Scalia asked with some sarcasm.

  
  Justice Scalia, you ignorant slut. The very definition of an activist judge. His limitless ego now seems to give him power to decide scientific principles.

Tipping Points

There's a great article in the latest Mother Jones on the different factors that color our planet's ability to respond to global warming. It's a long article and I won't include it here but there were some snippets that I found particularly interesting. The first is on how our station in life affects our views on global warming:

" ... found that Americans fall into "interpretive communities"—cliques, if you will, sharing similar demographics, risk perceptions, and worldviews. On one end of this spectrum are the naysayers: those who perceive climate change as a very low or nonexistent danger. Leiserowitz found naysayers to be "predominantly white, male, Republican, politically conservative, holding pro-individualism, pro-hierarchism, and anti-egalitarian worldviews, anti-environmental attitudes, distrustful of most institutions, highly religious, and to rely on radio as their main source of news." This group presented five rationales for rejecting danger: belief that global warming is natural; belief that it's media/environmentalist hype; distrust of science; flat denial; and conspiracy theories, including the belief that researchers create data to ensure job security." -- 2005 study by Anthony Leiserowitz, published in Risk Analysis

And the second on the need and the ability of our country to take action in the face of a threat:

"We also changed with breathtaking speed in 1941 when we recalibrated the entire economy of the United States in one short year to fight global enemies in Germany and Japan. The effort was promoted by the government but carried forward by individual citizens. Obviously, our powers of transformation are magnified by visionary leaders. Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March in 1930 ignited Indians of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities to unite in the common cause of independence. Gandhi, in turn, inspired Martin Luther King Jr., Stephen Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi, who catalyzed their followers to change the world as well.

Leaders can rouse us against them, too. Whether or not Marie Antoinette actually said, "Let them eat cake," she inspired change that reverberated far beyond Europe. Likewise, when George W. Bush says we can't act on global warming until we "fully understand the nature of the problem," we can use his callous disregard as a rallying cry.

The truth is, we can change, and change fast, even in the absence of perfect knowledge. Like cockroaches, our hallmark is adaptability. Long ago, we looked out from the trees and saw the savannas. Beyond the savannas we glimpsed other frontiers. History proves that when we behold a better world, we move toward it, leaving behind what no longer works."

That's a recurring point with global warming naysayers ... waiting for "perfect knowledge". Or at least that is the reason they give. If they actually cared about having all the facts before taking action, they would have never invaded Iraq on a false premise. But in the case of global warming (and Iraq), they don't care what knowledge they have at hand. They will twist whatever data or testimony they have (from questionable sources) and use it to promote the policy that they have already decided on for other reasons. After all, we know who/what is really in control here -- (big) oil. If you needed any proof, Exxon Mobil is being allowed to influence what is considered science in our classrooms. They actually have the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) so scared that the organization is turning down a donation of 50,000 DVD's of An Inconvenient Truth:

Science a la Joe Camel

I'm sure I've overused Stephen Colbert's quote but it's so fitting -- "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Conservatives will paint science as "left-wing" if it doesn't fit in with their worldview. That's a dangerous thing when it affects how our children are taught.

Sadly, it looks like it will take the courts to force any kind of action by a "see-no-evil" administration:

High court to hear global warming case

White House Sued for Not Doing Report on Warming

Friday Wrap-up

Not by any plan, I found myself listening to Paul Harvey on the radio the other day. Because of a rain-out the previous day, the D-backs and Cubs were playing a doubleheader. Between the games, the local affiliate of the D-backs put on Paul Harvey's sindicated program. Growing up in the midwest and having two parents that had liked Paul Harvey, I was well-acquainted with his program from my youth. Either through my not being politically active then or by Paul Harvey being different then, I was greatly surprised by how out-of-touch he is. I would feel better if it was just senility that taints his views. But a little research indicates that he has always been like this. From listening to his show for only 5 minutes (sad, I know ... kinda like watching a car crash scene), I learned the following:

- the economy is doing great
- patience in Iraq is important (comparing our fight there to the Cold War)
- Donald Rumsfeld is a great man and doing a stand up job
- global warming is not important because the government says it isn't

He caught his breath long enough to break for a commercial and to shill for Wal-Mart and a pharmaceutical company. It's scary how many millions of people listen to him. But then again, they listen to James Dobson and Sean Hannity also. It does not give you a lot of faith in the sanity or judgement of some of us.

GWB has documented some of Harvey's nuttier statements in the past: SO WHAT DO THESE GUYS HAVE IN COMMON?

I'm not sure which is weirder: the fact that I don't agree with a single thing that Paul Harvey says or that I agree with something that Pat Robertson says:

Heat makes Pat Robertson a global warming "convert"



So, I'm faced with the unenviable position of criticizing someone my parents considered iconic or being on the same side of an issue with someone that I consider to be one of the most unhinged public figures of the last 20 years. It's a weird world we live in.

That Robertson has come to this conclusion (of which I'm not completely convinced he will hold to) is not as surprising as you may think. A large percentage of evangelicals have been leaning this way for awhile:

The Greening of Evangelicals

Many see the stewardship of the Earth as a sacred responsibility. Unfortunately, too many others will ignore the issue because they cannot stomach being on the same side of any issue with left-leaning environmentalists. For a nice refutation of the evangelical global warming doubters, see Calling a Bluff.

That is the problem for both sides. On these issues that affect all of us, we need to get away from the politics as much as we can.

Then you have the following brain surgeons leading our country:

The current energy panel chairman, Texas Republican Joe Barton -- "I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter." -- Congress and global warming

God's a polluter alright. He polluted this Earth with the likes of Barton and Roy Blunt:

Today in Energy and Environment Daily (sub. req’d), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said that if he remains in power after the November elections, there will be no action on global warming for the entire 110th Congress:

Continued Republican House and Senate majorities would likely mean more of the same on climate. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he would oppose global warming mandates if Republicans control the 110th Congress. “I think the information is not adequate yet for us to do anything meaningful,” he said.

Or that bastion of accuracy and open-mindedness, FOX News:

Summary: On Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Fred Barnes again denied the broad scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming.

=========================================================


One of Mr. Harvey's heroes, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was in the limelight this week. It's hard to decide whether he is just an incredible idiot or the most pompous ass ever. Donald Rumsfeld's performance at the Senate hearings on Iraq this week showed incredible gall. From Think Progress:

Testifying before the Senate today, Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that he has “never painted a rosy picture” about Iraq. Rumsfeld insisted that he has been “very measured” and told Clinton “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”

Here’s just a few of the “overly optimistic” comments made by Rumsfeld (and no, we did not have a “dickens of a time” finding them):

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”

Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

=========================================================

And finally, a recent law in Arizona, House Bill 2583, requires that every room in every community college display an American flag:

Maricopa Community Colleges has to come up with as many as 1,220 American flags made in the United States to comply with a new state law by next July.

The cost would be $18,300 if early cost estimates of $15 are accurate, the district's spokeswoman, Nicole Greason, said.
... The Bill of Rights and the Constitution also must be posted alongside the flag in every classroom, according to House Bill 2583, recently passed by the Legislature.

With more than 280,000 students, 10 colleges and two skill centers, the district is one of the largest in the nation and makes up about half of the community college classrooms in the state ..."

If the goal is education, it would be an admirable goal. But from the history of our local legislature who feels it's an inalienable right to carry a concealed weapon whereever you want, one gets the feeling it's more about indoctrination. And from many of the legislators' stances on current issues, you could probably assume that they have never actually read the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If people really loved their country, they would fight for the rights that are inherent in those documents instead of making bullshit token gestures that look good on the frontpage of their local papers.