Thursday, May 05, 2005

Taranto is at it again. Read today's WSJ editorial. Wow, what tripe. On the surface, his stuff sounds so assertive and damning, but when you really read what he's saying, a good deal of it falls apart or is not supported by anything in reality.

In the first paragraph, he attempts to describe himself as MOR -- huh? I've read many of his long pieces on "Best of the Web" and for him to believe that he's moderate about any issue is simply a farce, and delusional.

In the next paragraph, he feels sorry for the religious right due to "a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land." Where's the evidence? Offer examples. Oh, I'll give one: his man GW was installed by a court (Supreme) based on what has been considered by many legal scholars to be the most baseless and "ludicrous" of constitutional reasoning.

Next paragraph, he states, "'conservative' judges are not about to impose conservative policies." I see. So "liberal" (or "activist") judges impose liberal policies, but conservative ones won't. So says Jim.

In the next paragraph, he implies that because Congress is GOP-dominated, that the Dems should heed to this majority. In other words, make the majority 100% -- now that's democracy! Forget that each senator and representative is supposed to represent his/her constituency. He next asserts that the filibuster itself is "subverting the democratic process." Um, I thought it was the opposite, that the filibuster was a safeguard to insure that minority party could be heard (checks and balances)?

A few paragraphs down, he finger-wags at a columnist who used the terms "right-wing crackpots" and "knuckle-dragging judges." What hypocrisy. For those familiar with Taranto's column, he frequently name-calls or uses disparaging language to describe individuals.

Next paragraph, he criticizes Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) for an editorial where Taranto mischaracterizes what Feingold wrote (Taranto does this frequently in his column). Here is a large segment of what Feingold actually wrote:

And in this Greenville, the one in Alabama, I connected again to an American experience that isnt dictated by whether you live in a red state or a blue state. The people of Alabama appear to be among the most generous and most unsung philanthropists in this country. What they give is unimaginable to many others and they give it time and again. They regularly give their turn at the American dream to someone else. And they give it simply because theyre asked. So many people in Greenville dont seem to have basic health care coverage or promising job opportunities. Meanwhile, their children volunteer to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can only be humbled by their sacrifice. But because I am a lawmaker and a student of history, I also know who has been asking them to give so much. And I can only wonder how many more generations of central Alabamians will say yes when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children. As my wife and I drove through Greenville that night, I thought how fundamentally unfair this all is in order to support an increasingly radical conservative movement. Now some may think that Alabama and Wisconsin are the polar opposites of American politics. But in both states I've found that (along with sharing a sincere appreciation of a good turkey dinner) too many hardworking people are losing their battles for decent paying jobs and adequate health care. I'm tired of seeing the power-hungry persuade the hard-working people of this country that the only way to preserve important values is to vote against their own families basic interests. I believe that the working people of both states have sacrificed for other peoples agendas for too long. And I believe that any political party or political movement or political candidate who would consistently say this would be heard throughout America. We need to go to the Greenvilles of every state, red and blue, and say, Thank you. Youve sacrificed long enough. Now its your turn at the American dream.
Yeah, just awful. Shame on you Russ.

You can read the rest of what Jim wrote, but let me give another example of what this guy is all about. Here's something Taranto wrote not too long ago:
Here's a Reuters dispatch that exemplifies why "global warming" is impossible to take seriously:

Even if people stopped pumping out carbon dioxide and other pollutants tomorrow, global warming would still get worse, two teams of researchers reported on Thursday. . . .

Virtually no one disagrees human activity is fueling global warming, and a global treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan, aims to reduce polluting emissions. But the world's biggest polluter, the United States, has withdrawn from the 1997 treaty, saying its provisions would hurt the U.S. economy.
Actually, lots of people disagree that "human activity is fueling global warming," but Reuters seems to view them as nonpersons. (By contrast, if you think Osama bin Laden is a "freedom fighter," you can count on Reuters' respect.)

In any case, the first paragraph quoted above refutes the second one. If there's nothing we can do to stop "global warming," how can we be causing it to begin with
I will soon post an entry that includes several links showing that what Taranto calls "lots of people" are actually folks on corporate payrolls (the big one being Exxon). The unanimous consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific community concurs that human activity is contributing to global warming.

Note Taranto then takes a snide swipe at Reuters, saying that the news outfit would condone a complimentary Osama comment. Oh, how nice. And yet today he wrote it's the liberal side that attacks and rudely slams the right.

But my favorite is his final bit of reasoning. Can someone explain to me his logic? So for proof that we are causing something, we must first be able to stop whatever that is? What? Reuters' first paragraph simply points out that with the amount of pollutants and CO2 that has already been released into the air by humans, that the resulting effects will be felt for decades even if we stopped releasing anything today. The next paragraph addresses the U.S. flip-flop on Kyoto thanks to Bush. How does the latter refute the former?

Alas Jim, it's you who can't be taken seriously.

No comments: