Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.



 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Moral Values Hypocrisy

Category: Society
Posted: 08/31/07 11:56

by Tom Hammond

The trouble with Christian Conservative Republicans is that they love to preach their religion but they don?t like to practice it.

Senator Larry Craig?s men?s room escapade is just the most recent example of preaching one thing and doing another. Republican Congressman Mark Foley presented that Sunday morning image while searching for those Saturday night sexual opportunities with teen age pages.

Conservative preacher Ted Haggard was having sex with a male prostitute while he led 30 million Christian Evangelicals in bashing gay Americans. And then there was Republican Senator David Vitters. In public he was the holiest of the holy, but in private, it was no holds barred (if you know what I mean!)

The simple fact is that within the Republican party today, there is a pack of bible toting, scripture quoting, psalm singing, self-righteous, holier-than- thou hypocrites that have ever walked the face of this earth. Their hypocrisy is disgusting.
comments (0) permalink

Senator Coleman: What Is "Conduct Unbecoming"?

Category: Norm Coleman
Posted: 08/30/07 17:12, Edited: 08/30/07 17:31

by Dave Mindeman

"Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator, he should resign.? --Sen. Norm Coleman

Senator Coleman's reaction was swift and complete. Yet, one has to ask, What is conduct unbecoming for a Senator?

Senator Craig plead guilty to be sure, but it was to disorderly conduct. Is that conduct unbecoming?

Let's compare Senator Craig to Senator Vitter:

Senator Craig denies behavior that constitutes anything more than disorderly conduct.
Senator Vitter is on the DC Madam's telephone list and says he committed a very serious sin (which would be adultery, yes?).

Conduct unbecoming? Who wins?

Senator Craig's biggest crime to me is his hypocrisy. As a Senator he works against gay and lesbian rights; as a private citizen he tries to have it both ways. (hmmm, that was kind of a pun).

Roll Call points out the dilemma for the House Ethics Committee. Senator Craig's guilty plea is not exactly the type of charge that automatically warrants an investigation. It is the details surrounding it that will have to be extracted in what is sure to be, uncomfortable testimony. It's important to note that Senator Craig has not admitted to any of these "details" and although the police report hints at solicitation, that was not the charge. Senator Vitter's evidence is clearly more damaging, yet no ethics probe has been called for by his colleagues.

So, if I am to interpet Senator Coleman's statement, then I would have to simplify it to this:

Senator Craig's "conduct unbecoming" involves being a closeted gay man more than any actual crime.

I guess that is the way they will have to proceed, because if "conduct unbecoming" was hypocrisy, there wouldn't be anyone left to conduct the ethics hearing.

comments (0) permalink

Senator Inhofe Is At It Again!

Category: Environment
Posted: 08/30/07 13:34

by Dave Mindeman

I was surfing the internet this morning and came across this header on the Drudge Report:

Survey: Fewer than half of scientists endorse man-made global warming...


I captured the link so that you can see for yourself that this "conclusion" comes from the office of Senator James Inhofe, of Oklahoma. As you may or may not know, Senator Inhofe has made it his life's work to make sure this country doesn't survive into the next century; and that Al Gore is classified as some hysterical kook.

I think it is relevant to note that this "survey" did not ask any scientists about their reasoning. The survey did not talk to anyone. No, this analysis looked at research papers dealing with the subject matter between 2004 and 2007.

There is a couple of points to keep in mind:

1. Scientists don't talk about their own personal beliefs in scientific research papers. They deal with hard facts. They leave their own speculation out of it. Believe it or not, most scientists are not interested in political agendas. It is people like Senator Inhofe who make it so hard to avoid.

2. During that time period, research studies have been paid for by many energy companies in attempts to refute the growing consensus on global warming. One only has to look to drug company research to understand that who pays for the study makes a difference in the outcome.

3. They list 528 papers that were examined. What was the critieria for inclusion? Surely there were more than 528 papers involved with this subject. How did the researcher determine if a paper met the criteria? A survey's accuracy are dependent on its intial criteria.

But just looking at the data they provide can lead to an opposite conclusion. According to their own data. They classify 48% of the papers as neutral -- a pretty high number of scientists are classified as having "no opinion" on global warming? Of course they have an opinion, they are just not asked in relation to this survey. Secondly, although they say only 7% of the papers gave an implicit endorsement of man's involvement in global warming, 38% of the others gave, what they termed, an "implied" endorsement. But here is the kicker...only 6% rejected the idea of man's involvement in global warming.... 6%!

The conclusion of this researcher is that by including the 48% who were neutral, you have a "majority" of papers who do not support the current global warming consensus.

The author of this "treatise" (Michael Asher) then asks us to simply ignore the United Nations IPCC consensus on the subject. A survey that actually ASKED scientists to give their opinion on the topic.

I think Senator Inhofe is asking us to stretch the boundaries of belief on this one. Refuting scientific consensus with a clearly unscientific "survey" is just plain ludicrous.


comments (0) permalink

Calendar

« December 2014 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.