Category Archives: Nancy Pelosi

Yoo Hoo: Pelosi Knew Too

Walking down Bancroft Avenue today, I noticed this flyer posted on a newspaper box:

yoo_demo_outreach_flier

The following flyer deserves to be its companion:

FIRE

UPDATED 5-15-09

Panetta to CIA Employees: We told Pelosi the truth
, Politico.com

Taunted by the GOP, Nancy Pelosi throws a punch-at the CIA, Slate Magazine

EXTRA READING:

Pelosi says she learned of waterboarding in 2003
, Breitbart.com

Why Didn’t Pelosi Act?, RedState.com

Why don’t the Democrats dump Pelosi?
, HotAir.com

List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed on Interrogations, New York Times

Top Pelosi Aide Learned of Waterboarding in 2003, Washington Post

Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used, CNN.com

Congress and Waterboarding, WSJ.com

Security Before Politics, Washington Post

Democrats surprised to discover CIA plays politics with intelligence, HotAir.com

Omission Watch: ABC, CBS and NBC Ignore Pelosi’s Torture Hypocrisy, Newsbusters.com

Madame Speaker, Have You No Decency?, Pajamas Media

Pelosi Roasted by Waterboarding Revelations, Pajamas Media

Waffle House, The Daily Show

mrz051309dAPR20090513021037

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Berkeley, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Hypocrisy, John Yoo, Nancy Pelosi, Politics, UC Berkeley, Uncategorized, Waterboarding

3 Stooges: Obama, Reid, Pelosi

Too funny to pass up…

“Where are those three loafers?”

“They’re in there, talking politics. I just heard one of them say, ‘Let’s have a New Deal’.”

– Harrison Greene & Hilda Title, ANTS IN THE PANTRY, 1938

Would you fight for this great Republic, and…”

“Republican?! Naw, I’m a Democrat!”

“Not me!! I’m a pedestrian!”

– Edward LeSaint, Moe and Curly, HALF-SHOT SHOOTERS, 1936

c/o ThreeStooges.Net

1 Comment

Filed under 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Humor, Nancy Pelosi, Politics

Portrait of a blinking idiot: New litmus test for right-wingers and conservatives

A research team, based at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has published results from a study (“Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits,” Science, 19 September 2008, Vol. 321, no. 5896, pp. 1667-1670) that claims to show that physiological traits such as blinking and flinching correlate to political beliefs. Of course, those folks in the study who were strongly identified with conservative political beliefs are said to respond more strongly to stimuli by blinking harder and flinching.

If the claims are true that conservatives blink harder and more frequently, how do the study’s authors explain this?

Where do I begin? The sample size that led to this sweeping generalization? 46 people. So, the research team is saying that the reactions of 46 people can predict the behavior 6.7 billion people? Right…. Then, using that line of reasoning, one could hypothesize that 19 Muslim highjackers predict the behavior of all Muslims. I can hearing the howling about stereotyping and profiling and racism as I type these words.

According to the article, the team used

“physiological equipment, making it possible to measure skin conductance and orbicularis oculi startle blink electromyogram (EMG) response”

to conclude that

“Our data reveal a correlation between physiological responses to threat and political attitudes…. political attitudes and varying physiological responses to threat may both derive from neural activity patterns, perhaps those surrounding the amygdala.”

Of the eight researchers whose names appear on the article, only one – Mario Scalora – is a psychologist. The remainder are political scientists. There’s not a biologist, a neurologist, or a clinical physician in the lot. Not even a physiologist. You might think that adding a physiologist to a team that’s trying to draw conclusions about physiological reactions would be useful, if not obvious. If anyone has info on the specific equipment and tests used, please pass it along.

The article also states:

“political and social attitudes are heritable”

The proof they use for that conclusion: two articles published in the American Political Science Review. Since when are political scientists qualified to draw conclusions about genetics? Wouldn’t you want a geneticist to weigh in on that one?

While the Science article is careful not to draw conclusions about “liberals” and “conservatives,” the inference is obvious. And, the media is running with it. From the Toronto Star

“a new study in the prestigious journal Science says that people with right wing views blink and flinch far harder than liberals”

to Newsweek

“on the level of physiological reactions in the conservative mind, illegal immigrants may = spiders = gay marriages = maggot-filled wounds = abortion rights = bloodied faces.”

Lead author Doug Oxley told The Star

“What we’re introducing to the field of political science is this notion that there is a physical basis to these beliefs…”

If you want to introduce science to political science, why don’t you consult some actual scientists? All the team is doing is introducing and propogating another false meme.

So what’s next? Will folks be staring at faces, counting blinks, so that they can ferret out the evil conservatives from the nice liberals? I know! Bill O’Reilly can add a new segment to The O’Reilly Factor to complement his body language expert and media coach.

Ace of Spades has a nice retort to nitwit social scientists, Wherein I Do My Part to Aid the Social Sciences

More reading:

Are you born conservative (or liberal)? L.A. Times

Laws of Nature: How to Spot a Conservative Telegraph

Left, Right; Obama, McCain: It might not be what you think University of Nebraska-Lincoln Press Release

Updated Links from Slate.com
Republicans are from Mars, Democrats from Venus: Why is Every Neuropundit Such a Raging Liberal?
Liberal Interpretation: Rigging a Study to Make Conservatives Look Stupid

2 Comments

Filed under academia, Bill O'Reilly, conservatives, Dick Cheney, liberals, Nancy Pelosi, political science, Politics, right-wing