Fairweather

The race is on! (That is, will we middle-aged folks live to see humans set foot on Mars.)

Now, that's a really good question, G...

The notion that "well, it fits my worldview therefore it must have really happened that way" works for certain things, I suppose. Still, the narrative can't be held higher than facts when it comes to things like this. Ferguson is another case in point. Duke lacrosse, ditto. Lefties seem particularly fond of the media trial these days. Probably part of the reason no one's gonna trust em to run the whole show. Like, ever.

Looks like Rolling Stone has retracted the story. Too bad you guys already had the trial. Again.

Perfect.

You mean Landrieu? I guess it doesn't really matter--as long as there's a D next to the name.

As long as you balanced out your course with a raging Democratic asshole, no problem. Of course, there's a difference between an elected official--and a partisan activist like TTK. The latter has no business presenting in a public school. If he is bent on indoctrinating kids, he should stick to whatever progeny his dust-filled sack is capable of producing.

Well, you certainly make a case for private & home school. That a tool like you was invited to indoctrinate other people's k-12 kids in a compulsory setting is truly stunning.

Good post. We could have an interesting conversation about your first point as it relates to Karl Popper, CO2, etc. But that's another day. As for your second point, well, the site pontificator seems to think nonsense morphs into statistic if repeated often enough. Rote also seems to play an important role as the air escapes the balloon. In any event, I wouldn't put much cred in his resurrected "we/aclu" meme. This particular poster has built a rather, to put it kindly, padded resume here.

Another ridiculous myth.

IRonY aLErt. ThIs iS noT a dRilL.

It is. You miss the point. Cuz yer slow.

Yup.

My gripe was with the military posture taken up by police in the aftermath of the shooting. Particularly that SAW-looking thang on top of the armored vehicle. Based on the available facts, I don't see where Mr. Wilson could or should have done anything differently. That little 12-year old kid with the plastic gun who was shot by police in Ohio is a more worthy complaint.

A good interview. Looks like even George Stephanopoulos understands the danger this most arrogant president poses. Worth the six minutes: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/president-obama-defends-executive-action-immigration-27115743

Not sure why these losers have to hijack legitimate protests. Malcontents with no real agenda or clue.

Looked like a ref to the shake up in the middle east appearing at the top of the list of infamous errors... NP. My mistake. They all did have their moments for sure. Lots of "mixed bags"... Fair enough with the inclusion of GW on the shitbag list, at the risk of sounding unappreciative, I do think dubya should win top billing on that list... Fair? I was a lil surprised not to see FDR on your list... Plenty of fodder from his what, 12/13 year run? Wasn't the trail of tears 'ole hickory's thing? LBJ did get to sign into law some pretty momentous legislation in our history... Medicare, civil rights act... And, the resulting exodus of racist southern democrats to the republican party in '64 after he signed the latter into law went a long way to make the R's what they are today... They have to be somewhere I guess. Taking a broad view is important when judging these men, and the job they did as President. Historical perspective awaits both GW and Obama. One man's "dictater" is another man's "leader". d FDR was the closest thing to a dictator we've had, for sure. I left him off the list because you were invoking "strategic" errors and FDR's handling of WWII was not as bad as the other presidents and conflicts I mentioned. Still, how do liberals reconcile incinerating perhaps a million Japanese in their homes with kerosene and the domestic "good" that he did? Not to mention, as I did above, the incarceration of 100,000 Japanese (60,000 of them US citizens) in camps? Ditto, LBJ's bifurcated legacy. The left seems far too willing to overlook a LOT. Still, FDR's court stacking scheme is probably the true measure of his autocratic proclivities. I have no doubt that, similarly, Obama sees himself as the only path forward today and would not hesitate to do something similar. Recall that this is the guy who suggested minting a $1Tn platinum coin during the budget crisis. As for Trail of Tears, yes, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 (passed by the narrowest of margins in Congress, if I recall) but it was Van Buren who imposed force on reluctant tribes after 1837. I think the "Trail of Tears" generally refers to this period, but I'll have to do a refresh on this. Which presidents are not cursed with shitbaggery? Probably only two, IMO: George Washington--and Jimmy Carter.

Doug, "The Great Experiment" is a pretty common reference to American Democracy itself. Not sure how you conflated it with the Iraq War. Not my intent at all.

David Brooks--no righty by any stretch--really does a good job of distilling down the problem(s) with Obama in a recent New York Times editorial: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/11/19/1-obama-doesnt-seem-to-be-learning-from-failure.html Wednesday November 19, 2014 They say failure can be a good teacher, but, so far, the Obama administration is opting out of the course. The post-midterm period has been one of the most bizarre of the Obama presidency. President Barack Obama has racked up impressive foreign-policy accomplishments, but, domestically and politically, things are off the rails. Usually presidents use midterm defeats as a chance to rethink and refocus. That’s what Obama did four years ago. Voters like to feel the president is listening to them. But Obama’s done no public rethinking. In his post-election news conference, the president tried to reframe the defeat by saying turnout was low, as if it was the Republicans’ fault that the Democrats could mobilize only their core base. The president seemed to detach himself from his party, as if the Democrats who lost their jobs because of him were far-off victims of some ethereal malaise. Usually presidents at the end of their terms get less partisan, not more. But with his implied veto threat of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Obama seems intent on showing that Democrats, too, can put partisanship above science. Keystone XL has been studied to the point of exhaustion, and the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it’s a modest-but-good idea. The latest State Department study found that it would not significantly worsen the environment. The oil’s going to come out anyway, and it’s greener to transport it by pipeline than by train. The economic impact isn’t huge, but at least there’d be a $5.3 billion infrastructure project. Usually presidents with a new congressional majority try to figure out if there is anything that the two branches can do together. The governing Republicans have a strong incentive to pass legislation. The obvious thing is to start out with the easiest things, if only to show that Washington can function on some elemental level. But the White House has not privately engaged with Congress on the legislative areas where there could be agreement. Instead, the president has been superaggressive on the one topic sure to blow everything up: the executive order to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws. The president was in no rush to issue this order through 2014, when it might have been politically risky. He questioned whether he had the constitutional authority to do this through most of his first term, when he said that an executive order of this sort would probably be illegal. But now the president is in a rush and is convinced he has authority. I sympathize with what Obama is trying to do substantively, but the process of how it’s being done is ruinous. Republicans would rightly take it as a calculated insult and yet more political ineptitude. Everybody would go into warfare mode. We’ll get two more years of dysfunction that will further arouse public disgust and anti-government fervor (making a Republican presidency more likely). This move would make it much less likely that we’ll have immigration reform anytime soon. White House officials don’t understand that many in the Republican Party are trying to find a way to get immigration reform out of the way. This executive order would destroy their efforts. The move would further destabilize the legitimacy of government. Redefining the legal status of 5 million or 6 million people is a big deal. This is the sort of change we have a legislative process for. To do something this seismic with the stroke of one man’s pen is dangerous. Instead of a nation of laws, we could slowly devolve into a nation of diktats, with each president relying on and revoking different measures on the basis of unilateral power — creating unstable swings from one presidency to the next. If Obama enacts this order on the transparently flimsy basis of “prosecutorial discretion,” he’s inviting future presidents to use similarly flimsy criteria. Talk about defining constitutional deviancy down. I’m not sure why the Obama administration has been behaving so strangely since the midterms. Whatever it is, it’s been a long journey from the Iowa caucuses in early 2008 to the pre-emptive obstruction of today. I wonder if, post-presidency, Obama will look back and regret that he got sucked into the very emotional maelstrom he set out to destroy. David Brooks writes for The New York Times.

Well, we'll just disagree on the big parts--even as we agree on a few of the details. I'm certainly not as cynical as you regarding the Great Experiment as I don't see the status-quo looking much different than historical trends or events. For example, you label the Iraq War as "the absolute[] worst strategic error ever perpetrated by a president . . . " I'd go backwards and suggest LBJ's (and McNamara's) Vietnam bungling, Wilson's WWI waffling and Versailles arrogance, McKinley's Spanish-American War and the brutal suppression of the Philippine Insurrection that followed under TR, the pre-Civil War incompetence of Buchanan, The underhanded dealings of Polk in Tex-Mex, Van Buren's Trail of Tears, Madison's War of 1812, etc, all compete for this prize. (I'd love to hear Ivan's take on this as well.) If it makes you feel better, I will call all of these presidents shitbags too. Including GW. And to varying degrees, they all were. As far as corruption, well, I'll just go way out on a limb and say that I don't think personal enrichment normally plays a direct role in American politics. In other words, yes, corporations (and unions, and grass-roots) "buy" influence and subsequently lobby representatives, senators, and presidents for ROI. But with exceptions like Harry Reid, Dick Cheney (arguably, IMO), the Clintons, and pretty much every single Illinois-grown politician since the 1920s, I think what you view as corruption is much closer to good old fashioned pigs at the trough--or true-believer syndrome vis-a-vis ideology. Anyhow, I'd like to respond more completely, but the wife is standing here looking at her watch.

Wild turkey, anyone?

Me too. Sorry, Rad, but you don't appear to be up to the task. Some history or civics education is clearly in order. Still, I hope you have a good Tofurkey Day, err, uhh, or whatever you people eat up there in anarchy land.

Most of the old gear got recycled--except my orange fiberglass Stubai axe and blue wool Dachstiens-- but I've got some good non-gear museum stuff.

It's not the President's place to tell Congress to do anything. In fact, the American people regularly gridlock govt at the midterm to check the executive branch. Works both ways. It's also worth noting, FYI, that bills are supposed to originate in the House. The fact that Harry Reid's Senate came up with an Obama rubber-stamp bill means jack. Then, of course, there is always the lack of action during the 2009-2011 Democrat-controlled Congress. Obama has played politics with the law, with the recent election he thought Democrats had a chance-in-hell of winning, and with the lives of the very immigrants he claims to champion. Bills are supposed to originate in the House. check Harry Reid rubber stamp. check lack of action of some historical Congress. check. Obama has played politics within the law. check. Thought they had a chance of winning? I bet he knew they wouldn't. Championing immigrants? Who will then? Should we? I guess Congress is going to figure that out! It's settled then. Congress will have to sort it out. After they neuter the dick-tater.