WMC apologist quote of the week

Early on in the most recent Supreme Court race, WMC put Justice Louis Butler in its sights simply because he had demonstrated a taste for judicial activism, particularly aimed at the business liability [sic].

Which is why WMC's ad campaign concentrated on — and falsely portrayed, at the expense of the U.S. Constitution by distorting its system of justice — Butler's record in adjudicating criminal appeals.

Judith Faulkner owes success to WMC.

So, let's see. You deliberately distort a respected judge's record in criminal cases when you don't care for his dispositions in civil ones, and one day Wisconsin is America's tax hell and its "Alabama North" and the next it's the best environment for companies like Epic Systems to thrive in. I guess you have to get pretty deep down in the free market think tank to come up with stuff like that, thus the attendant confusion and memory loss is understandable.

McAdams red-lines the spin tachometer

This is hilarious.

Some time ago, a reporter asked Barack Obama whether, if he is elected president, his administration would investigate alleged criminal acts by the Bushies related to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In response to the hypothetical question, Obama was careful to distinguish between disagreeable policy and actual, substantive crimes. This was clear to competent readers of English.

Several months later, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "right-wing guy" Patrick McIlheran completely ignored Obama's own response and fantasized that the Bush administration would be criminally prosecuted simply for poor policy decisions, and even desperately suggested that Obama's Department of Justice will prosecute "things" that were not even crimes, a truly remarkable feat.

We all had a good laugh about it here and here.

Yesterday, the comically oblivious John C. McAdams, an actual professor of political science at Marquette University who routinely demeans the intellectual competence of his academic colleagues — a textbook case of a pot calling the kettle black — repeated McIlheran's nonsense pretty much verbatim.

Challenged by a number of commenters at his blog to address Obama's clear statements, McAdams instead derided them for suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome," a phony diagnosis fabricated by the irascible Faux News "expert" Charles Krauthammer to assist conservatives in avoiding responding to legitimate criticisms of the current Republican administration.

Now, challenged by several more, McAdams still resists engaging plain English and posits that Obama (whose name McAdams can't even spell correctly) be investigated for "possible connections with terrorists" and calls the commenters "Bush bashers," even though all any of them did was ask McAdams to actually read what Obama said.

"If [Obama] broke the law, he definitely should be punished, don't you think?" says McAdams, despite that being not only essentially what Obama had said in response to the Philly.com reporter's original question, but precisely what McAdams's own interlocutors are asking of him and which he refuses to answer.

Does Allen-Bradley make an explosion-proof irony meter? If so, Professor John C. McAdams is in dire need of one.

Lest anyone finds it damn nigh impossible, as I do, to believe that John McAdams is really a university professor of political science, here is evidence.

It's a good thing for McAdams that Marquette maintains that webpage, because there certainly isn't any such evidence at McAdams's personal blog but rather much to mitigate against it.

He does, however, perform a hell of a job in demonstrating the expression "political science" to be a contradiction in terms.

Highway to Heck

I-35 Can Stop Homosexuality — YouTube/700 Club, 5:09

"Christians are gathering at gay bars, strip joints, and porn shops."
"It was so big, it even attracted coverage in the local gay paper."
"I thought I was like tripping on acid."
"We're moving angels and demons. Right now."

h/t mixter

"Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Rocky Twyman said to a chorus of "Amens."

Why not just trade in the suburban assault vehicle for a hybrid?

God considers siphoning SPR for DC soccer moms

h/t Pundit Nation

McGift keeps on McGiving

"Nice to watch you lefties rally around Maher. It lets us Christians know where your hearts are." — McAdams

No "leftie" Christians, apparently. Only "us" Christians. Nice.

"Deep in the hearts of all the lefties is an authoritarian who wants to shut up speech they disagree with." — McAdams

Sheeshzeus. Miss the point much?

Courtesy folkbum's comments thread.

See also: American TV conned by whiny hypocrite.

I've half a mind to give Mr. Becker a little jingle tomorrow meself. Remind him that John McAdams thinks he's "either stupid or bigoted against Christians." Time to join the club, Wyn Becker!

And speaking of comment threads, McAdams has one going where he introduces the subject of homosexuals and then when he gets called on the ridiculous comparison, McAdams chastises the commenters, 'This thread isn't about homosexuals, please stay on topic.'

rofl

Fraley funnies

I wrote about the near-pathetic adventures of Republican consultant Brian Fraley yesterday. Today, Fraley is back with more priceless consulting, accusing One Wisconsin Now of trying to "intimidate and silence" Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce because OWN's principals set up a website to monitor WMC's political activities.

Is this character for real?

Seriously, a website is going to "intimidate and silence" WMC? I can't even exchange an Al Hamilton for a roll of quarters at M&I Bank to do my laundry without a demand for ID and an account number.

Night of broken ass

Via The Chief, the carefully considered backwoods northwoods conservative Republican view of Barack Obama:

Obama keeps saying that he wants change but he will not say what the change is.

In 1933 Germany had a major change in government. We all know how that story ended.

That is by way of — get this — "educating people." The Chief responds appropriately here. Jesse Seymour's favorite book is Harry Potter, so perhaps he is using magickal powerz and crystal ballin' Obama's crimes against humanity. But in the meantime, you want a crime against humanity, check out Seymour's jacket-shirt-tie combo.

Who knew Mein Kampf was about dressing oneself.

Your daily blasphemy

Science Fiction Pope (YouTube 2:40)

Where are all the brain fossils?

PZ Myers, a developmental biologist from Minnesota and proprietor of the famous blog Pharyngula, has announced for Jesus and converted to Christianity.

Not really, but he did turn up on a local Christian radio station today. And, to great comic effect, so did a man by the name of Geoffrey Simmons, one of the most idiotic creationists in recent memory.

Simmons is another of these "fellows" with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank devoted to propagandizing on behalf of "intelligent design," the latest ongoing and spectacular failure at Reclaiming Science for Christ.™ Simmons has written a couple of books, one comparing Darwin's 19th century knowledge of physiology with 21st century medicine (Simmons is an M.D. and Darwin predictably doesn't fare very well) and another purporting to discuss in depth the fossil record.

Simmons's publisher, Harvest House Books, says it's committed to providing "products that affirm Biblical values" and "proclaim Jesus Christ as the answer to every human need." If Simmons ever needed Jesus, it was this afternoon. Some relevant facts would have been helpful also. Nay, verily, even just one. Sadly, it was not to be.

Apparently PZ was invited to impart on the topic of "evidence for evolution versus evidence for intelligent design" (read: tons v. none). But things began to go awry 90 minutes before airtime when PZ received a message from the station informing him that Simmons agreed to participate, but only on the patently ridiculous question, "Are Darwin's theories fact or faith issues?"

Despite immediately sensing shenanigans, PZ soldiered on, appeared at the appointed time, and proceeded to casually and affably pick clean the hapless bones of Dr. Simmons. According to the show's hosts, the audio will be available tomorrow at its website, KKMS.com. It's worth a listen.

During the "debate," Simmons made a number of false claims about the fossil record, an area in which, the radio hosts informed us, Simmons is "expert." Simmons, for example, declared there are no pre-whale fossils demonstrating some of the physical features characteristic of modern whales. The truth is, the evolutionary history of whales has involved some of the most revelatory endeavors in paleontology of late, owing to the discovery of a number of remarkable confirmations of evolution throughout the Indian Ocean.

PZ rattled off a number of such examples, none of which Simmons had even heard of, but said he'd once read an article in Scientific American, or something. While sleeping at a Holiday Inn, I bet.

One of the funnier exchanges occurred during a comparison of human and chimpanzee brains. Finding himself in uncomfortable agreement with PZ on the numerable close similarities, Simmons was moved to suddenly demur when PZ observed that the only substantive difference between the two organs was their relative volumes. Simmons then began to declaim on the distinctions, offering as evidence — wait for it — an anecdote about being able to play both concertos and "rock 'n' roll songs" on the piano.

Take that, godless evilutionist!

But the grandest insight came from another Discovery Institute drone, commenting at Uncommon Descent, the blog of William Dembski, one of ID's leading dim bulbs. The commenter, skeptical of PZ's claim that much is known about brain evolution, posed the apparently rhetorical question, "Does anyone know of any brain fossils?" This is what passes for evidence of intelligent design, incidentally. Life must have been designed because there are no brain fossils. While the Designer may have been intelligent, its disciples, not so much.

Never mind that the brain is composed of soft tissue, and is rather unlikely to fossilize. And never mind that the fossil record is only one of any number of evidences for evolution. Generally, it's bones that fossilize, so if a well preserved human brain is ever discovered, it's guaranteed to be that of a creationist.

A reminder for the blog "Warrior"

Further to this episode, a memory jog for Prof. McAdams:



Since then immediately published but awaiting moderation.

McAdams appears to have had occasion to assemble a number of his trademark cantankerous ditherings since four days ago, but hasn't quite found a moment to engage the challenge of supporting his accusations of "naked anti-Christian bigotry." Of course he won't find any such "bigotry" here, let alone anything to conform with his outlandish "black guy at a Klan rally" analogy, but you'd think he'd at least have the gumption to admit he was very, very mistaken.

He wouldn't be much of a "blog Warrior" otherwise, would he.

Raw anti-Psychic bigotry

"Psychic" Sylvia Browne's Predictions for 2007

[YouTube. 2:31]

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

[Deut. 18:10-12]

The blog Warrior

I notice from one of the widgets that the esteemed Marquette University professor and self-appointed internets "warrior" John McAdams has linked to this here blog as an example of "raw anti-Christian bigotry." Apparently McAdams came across the website of Richard Dawkins, and found a comment string attached to some article, containing something or other McAdams finds objectionable.

I can only imagine what, since I haven't bothered to read it. Frankly, what offends John McAdams interests me not at all.

But I know Richard Dawkins primarily for his brilliant writings on evolutionary biology, and not so much as a "famous atheist," which is how McAdams describes him. Further to the comment string at Dawkins's website, McAdams hallucinates:

But the comments aren't that different from opinions expressed in the liberal blogosphere in Wisconsin. Check particularly Hermes' Journeys and Illusory Tenant.

Particularly! Almost needless to say, McAdams's hopeless attempt to smear me as a "bigot" made me laugh out loud, so I deposited the following in his own thread:

Oy vey, such laughable histrionics and hyperbole. I challenge you to cite an instance of "raw anti-Christian bigotry" on my blog.

Anybody who's read it knows that I'm a non-subscriber to superstition and fairy tales, which I've characterized as exactly that. Big deal. That's hardly "bigotry," raw or cooked.

Additionally, any intelligent observer — like, for example, a university professor — will notice that my criticisms are directed at those who use religion for political, financial, or other material ends.

I've also criticized those who hide their religion for political purposes, e.g., the latest incarnation of creationists.

I probably have more respect for the admonitions attributed to Jesus than most so-called Christians, certainly those hypocrites one encounters in the press and online on a nearly daily basis.

If I recall correctly, Jesus wasn't a real big fan of hypocrites either. So, think of me as doing the Lord's Work.

McAdams certainly hasn't gotten any less ridiculous lately.

P.S. I still harbor a profound disappointment that no local wingnut publicized my misogyny/misandry/what-have-you for depicting Ann Coulter trundling her enormous testicles around in a wheelbarrow.

P.P.S. Oh look, Patrick McIlheran's favorite wingnut blogger describes Mike Huckabee's Christian supporters as "simple minded idiots" on the grounds they are Christians favoring a Christian.

*McCrickets chirping*

Headlines of no distinction

Speaking of semantic genius, I notice another headline from yet another local conservative blog, courtesy the BNN feed, as follows:

Founding fathers wanted us to be free OF religion, not free FROM religion

And the difference is?

Louse-Off shampoo will keep you free OF head lice, not free FROM head lice

None.

But if it's correct the founding fathers wanted us to be free of religion, I can certainly accept that. And even offer a hearty "Amen." So don't let anyone tell you a conservative blogger never said something objectively true. Sometimes they do — by mistake.

For the record

While I'm duly flattered that the Journal-Sentinel's Tim Cuprisin done gimme some link lovin' over yonder, I'm afraid I have to take exception to his characterization of my being "up in arms."

I ain't up in arms, I'm bemused by the innumerable layers of irony, which you practically need a spreadsheet to keep track of. The little episode has also spawned some of the funniest expressions of faux-outrage and self-righteous blather I've seen in weeks.

One can start by having a gander at a trio of posts, starting with this one, put up by the Brew City Brawler today.

If I was so inclined, I'd say that letter from the Interfaith Conference was a Gift From God Her/Himself, given that its recipient and his clownish acolytes are apparently milking it for all its worth.