Dear Professors,

The layers of irony are so thick, I challenged myself to include them all in one sentence.  Here’s what I came up with.

For the sake of non-violence, you are defending a woman who is advocating violence and attacking a man who is criticizing her advocacy of violence for creating a climate of violence using as justification an absolutely false and despicable smear about the Tucson shootings which itself has led to an explosion in death threats against Sarah Palin and even a death threat against a Tea Party leader on national TV, all the while imploring the rest of us to keep our disagreements serious, honest, and undistorted.

If I were an honest and intelligent sociologist, I’d be so embarrassed by your statement that I’d consider calling myself something else to distinguish myself.  Perhaps “imperical society analyst” or something of the sort.

Sincerely,
<my name>

P.S.  You should consider changing the name of your organization to the American Sociological Society.  It’s more fitting.

P.S.S.  If one of you could forward this to Sally T. Hillsman, I’d really appreciate it.  Thanks!

I couldn’t quite fit in the part about “We don’t want to restrict free speech, but Glenn Beck’s speech isn’t covered under free speech” and the fact that Glenn never actually told anyone to commit violence against anyone, include Dr. Piven.  Oh yeah, and what will they say if some nutball reads their statement and makes a threat against Glenn Beck because of it?  Do they really think it couldn’t happen?  Theirs is the stupidity that just keeps on giving.

I don’t expect a reply, but if I get one, I’ll be sure to post it up.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

EDIT: Whoops, I just noticed that I spelled “empirical” totally wrong.  Boy, don’t I feel like a sociologist right about now.

Dear Sheriff Dupnik,

 

Yesterday, our nation suffered a tragedy with the attempted murder of a congresswoman and the murder of six innocent people, including a federal judge and a child.  When such atrocities occur, we Americans like to put our trust in the competence and professionalism of our law enforcement officers.  You have breached that trust.  You took advantage of your position to blame the “vitriolic rhetoric” on the right and lecture us with political statements. You even blamed the Republicans for opposing the Democrats’ bills (what the hell?). Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.  You admitted to having zero evidence that Loughner was influenced by Palin, radio, the right, or any of the rhetoric you decry.  You state that it’s merely your opinion, but it’s not- it’s a lie.  I also have no evidence that he was influenced by Islam, but if I were to blame Islam for this tragedy and call it my opinion, people like you would call me a liar and rightly so.

 

You also had the gall to say, “When people – allegedly credible people- who get up in front of cameras and microphones and say things that are not true and try to inflame the public …I think we need to take a look at it.”  It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that you made that statement while you are on TV saying things that are untrue and inflammatory.  As you were making your inflammatory statements, I felt a rage I haven’t felt in a long time.  Fortunately, as a rational person, I calmed myself down and responded by writing this letter.  Unfortunately, others may not be so rational as we all know.  Now, I am almost positive nobody’s going to do something horrible because of your influence and even if they did, I would not hold you responsible.  However, if I were to employ your logic, I could hold you culpable for the next tragedy, even without evidence.  I would just have to call it my “opinion”.

 

You say we need to calm tensions, but you are only doing the opposite- you are inflaming tensions.  The best thing you could do for the nation would be to immediately apologize for your inappropriate and unprofessional behavior and stick only to the facts in the case.  I am calling on you to do so and fully expect it.

 

Regards,

<My name>

What makes this even more upsetting is the despicable attempt by some to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, talk radio, the “culture of hate” promulgated by the right, etc. for the massacre.  This is about the most hateful mean-spirited aspect of modern politics that I despise.  Instead of focusing on the event itself, some sewer rats decide to use it to throw mud at people with whom they disagree, evidence be damned.  It’s bad enough that we have to watch our representatives be ruthlessly attacked; now we have to fend off accusations that we’re responsible and it’s just a big pointless distraction.  I guess I expected it, but it still appalls me.

Anyway, back to Mrs. Giffords, She’s in my prayers along with your husband and children.  The same goes for the families of Judge John Roll, Dorthy Murray, Dorwin Stoddard, Christina Greene, Phyllis Scheck, and Gabriel Zimmerman.

When you think about it, this is surprisingly close to what happened Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC.  The Washington Post reports about some of the recently found mistakes in one of global warming’s most sacred texts, the 2007 IPCC Report.  This includes the claim that the Himalayan glaciers.

He said colleagues regarded the error as too ridiculous to fuss about until recently. Last month, the journal Science printed a letter to the editor that traced the origins of the mistaken data: The U.N. panel seemed to have quoted an activist group’s report, not a peer-reviewed study. And, in citing another source, it appeared to have committed a serious typo: The year 2350 had become 2035.

Fair enough.  Typos happen.  As hard as I try, I’m sure there are several dozen typos on my blog.  But a typo that gets the time scale off by a factor of more than 10?  Considering how many times this claim got trumpeted in the media, you’d think someone in the know would have caught it.  Well, someone did in November, and here’s what happened.

Jairam Ramesh, India‘s environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would “challenge the conventional wisdom” about melting ice in the mountains.

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

Keep this in mind the next time the IPCC says they have a very clear idea of what is happening.  It could mean, in fact, they’re entirely clueless about the very basics of their claims.  While the average Joe knows very little about the Himalayans, he does know very clearly that the war ended in 1945, even if he’s not necessarily a WWII expert.  The WWII “expert” who gets caught off guard by a typo and then claims the war ends in 1954 won’t be considered an expert for long.  If these people who call themselves climate change experts have a very clear idea of what is happening, they should know as well as you and I know that the war ended in 1945 that the Himalayan glaciers melting within 30 years is totally off the mark.

I’ve been careful to not make definitive declarations either way on global warming.  I realize it’s possible that AGW is still happening despite corruption in the scientific process.  If that were the case, it would be a shame that so many have acted so disgracefully to lose the public’s trust on such an important problem.  It would also be a shame that so many, for all this time, have pushed for nothing but the most expensive, most impractical, and least effective solutions.

UPDATE: And over…

UPDATE 2: I just realized I basically called Bill Nye the Science Guy anti-science.  It’s a shame, too.  I used to enjoy watching his videos as a kid in school.  If he wants to hold to his belief in AGW, fine, but if he’s going to declare any doubt illegitimate, and in fact unpatriotic, I can’t help but conclude he’s put political advocacy over rational science.

At the time, he displayed his trademark cleverness by declaring that by focusing on health care, he was in fact focusing on job creation.    The American people then displayed their intelligence by remembering that he’s talking about a bill that wouldn’t come into effect until 2014, but hey, at least it would start taxing the private sector immediately.  Embracing the opposing arguments and turning them against one’s opponents is a great debate tactic- one that I like to employ- but it only works if it makes sense.

Now that I got my belated 2008 Christmas gift, from Massachusetts of all places (thanks Bay State!), and health care reform is effectively dead for the time being, the President is doing his hard pivot on jobs.  I think what we’re about to see may make us regret pressuring him to focus on jobs.  Go back to health care Mr. President!  I know you can get that one Republican in the Senate if you just use enough cleverness!

Could it actually be that Massachusetts voters will elect someone respectable?  Please please please please please please please please please please please please.  Though it’s looking likely, I’ll believe it when I see it.  If it does happen, I shall rejoice at the victory for sanity and the desperately needed slap in the face against bald arrogance and stupidity in Washington.  If it doesn’t, back to pessimism for our great nation’s future I go.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The director of the US government’s Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, is engaged to marry a television reporter from ABC news, the network said Tuesday.

Orszag, 41, who holds a key post in the administration of US President Barack Obama and is a divorced father of two, is engaged to marry 31-year-old reporter Bianna Golodryga who covers business and economics, ABC said.

The main purpose of this post is to have something for December.  I’ve embarked on a new career which is quite fulfilling, but is keeping me beyond busy.  Does that mean I’ll stop the blog?  No!  Does it mean I’ve run out of thoughts to share?  Hell no!  It just means I’ll have less time to spend on the computer.

Best of luck to Mr. Orszag and Ms. Golodryga and Happy New Year (and decade) to all out there!