This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 28, 2011 8:47 AM. The previous post in this blog was Just what they don't need. The next post in this blog is Help us name the Sam Adams world tour. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Over on the right

My soon-to-be-former colleague and erstwhile U.S. Senate candidate Jim Huffman has started up a political site called Northwest Free Press, which says it features "political news and commentary for moderates and conservatives." Among the contributors is former gubernatorial candidate Jack Roberts and my current and future colleague Tung Yin. If they don't succumb to blog burnout, it should be quite a read.

Comments (18)

There's many on the right who, justifiably, see Roberts as a lot worse than moderate.

With him involved it may need to be a Huffman version of the Huffington Post.

Or the "Capitulation Chronicles".

Jack's lingering defects with embracing the unraveling Global Warming movement and other non-right blunders has pretty much disqualified him as any rational voice from the right or center. He's out there.

But who knows perhaps he's figured out a way to change his Leopards' spots?

Jim's a good guy and maybe he has some spot remover skills.

By the way, Bojack for Mayor!

What exactly are the barriers to this idea?

Has there not been enough insanity to throw out the lunatics at the top around here?

And, remaining on the right, erstwhile US Senate candidate Huffman's imagined-but-not-to-be-former-colleague Judd Gregg has taken a job with perennial enemy of the people, Goldamn [sic] Sachs:

"It's been a good month for government regulators going to join the companies they regulate. On May 11, Comcast announced Meredith Baker would leave the FCC to join its board, after she approved its merger with NBC Universal a few months earlier. Today, the news is about Judd Gregg, the former three-term Republican senator from New Hampshire, who is going to work for Goldman Sachs."

"Gregg has already shown he was a friend to big banks like Goldman. In 2009, he argued against a proposed federal breakup of Goldman, saying in a Bloomberg interview, 'Big is not necessarily bad.... If an entity is properly capitalized and if it does decent underwriting, big can work to the advantage of this country.' And in 2010, he cautioned against populism as senate Democrats sought to overhaul financial regulations: 'The problem we have is that there is this populist fervor, this Huey Long attitude out there that says all banks are bad and that the financial system is evil and as a result we must do things which will basically end up reducing our competitiveness as a nation.' He should fit right in."

Further reading on Gregg:

"Melissa Francis is a CNBC talker who believes just like he does, and for some reason he mistook her for a dirty f*&king hippy and claimed she was setting him up as a man who wants to cut all spending on education. In fact, the only thing people like him and Ron Paul believe will work for America is to cut all government spending and federal programs and then just give tax cuts to the rich.

Then, Contessa Brewer brought up the fact that many economists think that when FDR became a deficit hawk so soon after expanding spending that he helped stop the country's economic growth. She asked him if he thought money from education should be cut, he went off and called them liars."

So why is Tung Yin shown behind bars?

Hopefully it is more analytical than BlueOregon and actually uses some facts on the impact of public policy on people who pay for it.

Also hope it refrains from the nyah-nyah name-calling of anyone that disagrees with BlueOregon (you hear me Ms. Axtman?)

Saying someone who disagrees with you is an idiot is never very convincing if you can address the merits.

Jim and Jack must remember that Carla Axtman has a trademark on any pejorative that ends in "bag" or "bagger."

Ben says: Has there not been enough insanity to throw out the lunatics at the top around here?

Being a global warming denialist is my definition of lunacy, Ben. Which, from the earlier part of your rant, you appear to be.

And you really have to be in an alternative universe if you consider Jack Roberts to be "a lot worse than moderate."

As for the Northwest Free Press, it has the potential to be a great read. Professor Huffman is a very smart and personable guy, and he makes the case for the libertarian/conservative viewpoint pretty compelling.

He ran a great law school, too.


There's no need to re-hash here Roberts entire buy into the AGW movement.

You can knock yourself out reading the entire thing by searching Jack Roberts and global warming over at OregonLive.

The fact is the AGW movement has been the mother of far left movements, fraud and an embarassment to the countless people who have painted their credibility and careers into a corner with the coolaid paint.

The Oregon Environmental Council claims parts of the Oregon coast have already been lost to AGE sea rise.

Ridiculous claims about declining NW snow packs persist in the face of the thoroughly refuting real trends.

Jane Lunbchenco's fabricated AGW link to Oregon's seasonal ocean dead zones is the most egregious Oregon Whopper.

And it goes on and on and on with ginned up attributions in academia to Metro.

Roberts will never regain any meaningful Republican support while helping the lunatic left with their con job.

Why do you put your faith in the Sam Adams, Rex Burkholders and the other progressive loons preaching the AGW religion?

Gordon: Being a global warming denialist is my definition of lunacy,
JK: You must have solid evidence that man's CO2 emissions is causing dangerous warming in order to be so accusatory of another person and so sure of yourself.

Would you be kind enough to share that evidence with us?

(Of course we all know that cuddly man-eating predators floating on icebergs tells us nothing about the cause of any warming. Neither do "tornadoes that are the worst in 100 years" which merely means that they were worse 100 years ago, before man emitted much CO2! And we all know oceans have been rising since the last ice age and that their rate of rise has slowed. and we all know that the US has been on a cooling trend for over 10 years.)


JK and Ben: I'm not a scientist, but then neither are you two. I cringe when I read someone claiming that a bad hurricane or a tornado means global warming apocalypse, just like I cringe when I read someone claiming that large snow packs this spring means global warming is a hoax (hmm...Ben...).

There's a broad scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, and that it is caused by humanity. Just because you choose to believe a few outliers, many of whom are paid shills for various far-right and energy company concerns, is your problem (actually it's all of ours because you guys are so loud in your incoherence).

The real issue is not whether global warming is occurring, but rather it's severity and whether the proposed cures are worse than the disease. Bjorn Lomborg and others like him present this case quite well. But yo-yos like you two, with your "global warming is a hoax" nonsense, don't give responsible skepticism from people like Lomborg any help, because they get tarred with your nuttery.

Hey Gordo,

We are still waiting for the evidence that caused you to
attack Ben! Do you have any?

(And I mean beyond the crap that David usually spews.)


This fits all the bickering on this post:


Clowns to the left and jokers to the right...

Global warming is another weapon used to attack Capitalism.
Restrict and eventually end the production and use of energy will bring Capitalism to her knees.
The elite crowd's mistake was they called it global warming. Imagine had they called it global cooling.
They will not debate it because they know it's a scam. Seen BILLIONAIRE al gore lately?
Now be good little sheeple, turn off your heat, one tub of water a week per family {more deodorant is acceptable},and sell your global warming causing cars and get in line to get on train. {Personal freedoms are over rated anyway}
Make love not war, and give peace a chance, you might just like it.


You've joined the make it up as you go crowd who can't be honest about any of this debate,

You play all the silly bromides and canards, "I'm not a scientist, but then neither are you two" then distort to draw equivelency where none exists.

The extensive whoppers by the alarmists far exceed anything the skpetics suggest.

But as you cringe when one claims a hurricane or a tornado means global warming apocalypse, you also do what most alarmists do by making up what I said.

I never said or implied that this single spring snow pack means global warming is a hoax.

That's your convenient and dishonest distortion.

If you did ever explore what the snowpacks have actually looked like over many decades and recent years you might even recognize the fraud you bought into. It isn't that tought to understand.

It doesn't take a scientist to read and understand simple measurements.

The bromide of "scientific consensus" has been so thoroughly exposed as contrived that it is amazing you would play that farce.

The extensive & global skeptic community is hardly a "few outliers, many of whom are paid shills for various far-right and energy company concerns".

Quite the contrary few if any are paid or shilling for anyone.

It is the AGW movement drawing the revenue stream.

But again you have the bromides down.

Oh and gee whiz thanks for the elementary lesson on the "The real issue".

Cherry picking the fool & phony Lomborg out of the sea of honest skeptics is just more of your phony and lost attempt.


"Lomborg’s claim that we need to “cure” so-called “unchecked climate change” is thus fallacious and contradicted by reality. Reducing human CO2 emissions will likely have no measurable cooling effect on planetary temperatures.

His insistence that we prioritize expenditures is spot-on when applied to genuine environmental and societal problems. However, it is irrelevant when the problems are mythical — or devised to advance ideological agendas. Moreover, even if human impacts on the global climate can actually be measured at some future date, humans currently lack the scientific and engineering understanding and capability to deliberately “manage” Earth’s constantly changing climate for the better.

Most certain of all, atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the “climate control knob” that anti-hydrocarbon alarmists assert, and it is irresponsible for Lomborg to claim his socio-political agenda will provide a low-cost solution for the global warming “problem.”

Far beyond being merely a "hoax" the AGW movement has become a tremendous scandal with acadedia, bureaucrats and politicians devouring massive amounts of resources attempting to impose a wide array of unneeded and destructive policies. It is they who are about to be tarred and feathered.

Gordon = David!


Amazing, Ben. Bjorn Lomborg joins Jack Roberts in the rogues' gallery of dangerous leftists!

Now I know how much respect to give the rest of your comments.

You've earned as much respect as JK, if that's any hint ...

Hey Gordon,

We're still waiting for your evidence that CO2 is dangerous. You know the data you relied on to say:
"global warming denialist is my definition of lunacy,"

Or are you the lunatic?
Lets see the evidence David.


So why is Tung Yin shown behind bars?

I was visiting the Vancouver Police Museum and liked the look of the prison bar exhibit.

Clicky Web Analytics