Fish Fear Me

Dustin Dominiak: Dirtbag

I was going to lay low on political stuff until after the election, this being the week where the usual hysteria becomes even more frenzied, but I feel compelled to weigh in on the sleaze job done to Christine O'Donnell yesterday. I haven't paid all that much attention to the race because I don't live in Delaware and therefore am not compelled to choose between two candidates I don't particularly like. But yesterday Gawker posted a story from a guy named Dustin Dominiak that really crossed the line. It is easily the sleaziest hit piece I've seen against a politician in a long, long, time. 

Apparently this Dustin Dominiak had an intimate encounter with Christine O'Donnell three years ago and he sold his story about that for a "low four figures" to Gawker. No, I'm not going to link it, it's easy enough to find if that's what you want. He thought he could do all of this anonymously, but it took The Smoking Gun less than a day to out him. Serves him right, the dirtbag.

If I lived in Delaware I would vote for O'Donnell now just to piss off the people who think this stuff is fine and dandy. 

So what has Dustin Dominiak gotten besides his few thousands of dollars?

Well, first and foremost, at the young age of 28 he has managed to forever associate his name with the word dirtbag on the Internet. Other associations with Dustin Dominiak that are probably being created even as we speak could be cad, fool, scumbag, creep, coward, dishonorable twit, idiot, etc. That ought to come in real handy the next time a prospective employer or date googles his name. Good work, Dustin Dominiak dirtbag.

There's also the possibility that O'Donnell will win now and then Dustin Dominiak could be immortalized as the new term for backfire. Wouldn't that be great? "That hit piece on his opponent really Dustin Dominiaked on him, didn't it?" Hahaha.

Finally, of course, there's the bit about her not being part of the waxing trend, which "was a big turnoff," revealing Dustin Dominiak to be nothing more than a man-child who can't handle a woman in her natural state. That's sure to help you with the ladies too, Dustin Dominiak dirtbag. Oh, and calling a non-intercourse encounter a "one night stand" is really, really, lame. 

Let's not forget about the role of the Lord of the Dirtbags here, Nick Denton, and his chief assistant dirtbag, Gawker editor Remy Stern. I don't believe it's possible to shame them, so the only thing you can do is deny them the one thing they lust after: your web traffic.

It's easy enough to do if you use Chrome or Firefox as a browser. I use Chrome and all you need to do for that is install the SiteBlock extension then go to tools, extensions, siteblock, and add this handy list of Gawker Media websites:

gawker.com
gizmodo.com
kotaku.com
kotaku.com.au
kotaku.jp
jalopnik.com
lifehacker.com
lifehacker.com.au
lifehacker.jp
deadspin.com
jezebel.com
io9.com
fleshbot.com
gawker.tv
cityfile.com
cityfile.gawker.com
valleywag.gawker.com
artists.gawker.com
defamer.com

Do that, and presto, you will never accidentally give Nick Denton's dirtbag empire a single hit. I included all of the ones listed on Wikipedia and not just gawker.com because I think that anyone or anything that willingly associates with Nick Denton is a dirtbag. If you need the Firefox version you can get the instructions for that here.

I hesitate to join in on a digital lynch mob, but this is just too much as far as I'm concerned. If Dustin Dominiak wakes up and apologizes that will be one thing, but so far he is stonewalling and that just doesn't cut it. He deserves every bit of flak that is hurled in his direction unless and until he apologizes.

Facts

NPR:

GOP Victory May Be Defeat For Climate Change Policy

Gee, it almost sounds like they think that's a bad thing.

Oh. Right. Well, it won't be a defeat for climate change policy. It will be a defeat for "a" climate change policy. One that is blinkered in its focus on CO₂, viciously reactive to reasonable criticisms, and propped up by a dedication to the narrative that is nothing less than a religious fervor.

Well, let's see what they have to say anyway.

The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

That's a scientific fact.

You, I'm sure, being the educated and astute reader that you are, noticed what they just did there. They actually took two scientific facts, rising CO₂levels and a slight rise in worldwide temps(more on that in a bit), slapped them together, and presto magico, my 9th grade science teacher is wrong: Correlation does prove causation! Take that Mr. Anderson!

Or not...ahem.

Let's see what comes next:

Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

That too, is a fact.

Oh my. Well, this is rather awkward, but there's nothing to do but point out just how embarrassingly wrong that is and move on. I'll even use the text of the Holy ScriptureIPCC Fourth Assessment Report  and not some hereticskeptic as a source. According to the clergy(rats, I keep doing that) scientists at the IPCC, humans are responsible for around 29 gigatons of CO₂being released into the environment each year. Yeah, you read that right, gigatons. That's a big number.

But when it comes to the carbon cycle, we humans have nothing on Mother Nature herself. That number the IPCC estimates at around 770 gigatons. Yeah, you read that right, 770 gigatons.  All of the oil, coal, and natural gas burned, all of the trees cut down or land burned for agricultural use, all of that human activity adds up to about 3.5% of what nature itself releases in the course of natural events. That, my friends, is a far cry from, "Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon." The argument is made that the human caused contribution is too much for the environment to handle, a conclusion that I think is far from proved, but the claim that humans are the biggest contributor in the carbon cycle is ludicrous. 

Oops.

There are also people on the other side who play loosely with the word "fact", of course. I'm not aware of any of them claiming the standing or credibility that NPR does though. 

Regardless, healthy skepticism about anthropogenic global warming, or climate change, or the most laughable latest term, climate disruption, is not based on simply denying everything, it is based on many serious questions about what has been proved scientifically and what is theory and conjecture. On the other hand, a reasonable skeptic right now does not scream about it all being a hoax or that it has been proved that man does not have an impact on climate. Neither of those have been proved either.

I think of myself as a reasonable skeptic, and this is what I believe:

• CO₂ level is one of many factors that can force changes to the Earth's climate. Solar activity, clouds, ocean currents, sudden and massive geological events are some of the others. We have learned a tremendous amount about each of those forces over the last few decades, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to know about each, let alone what we need to know about the enormously complicated interactions between them. I realize that I can't prove this, but all of the reading I have done on this issue tells me we still don't even know what we don't know. The focus on CO₂ to the exclusion of the others, when that occurs, is dogma and not science. 
• I only cautiously agree that there has been a slight rise in temperature over the last few decades, and then only because it's not a large enough number to argue about. The fact of the matter is that there are very few if any straightforward temperature records on which to simply base that conclusion. All of them, historic proxy records, actual historic temperature recordings, and current temperature recordings have been and are still subject to poor site locations, dubious data manipulations, and secrecy and stonewalling when other scientists try to examine why data was manipulated one way or the other. All of that is not to say that there is no value that can be gained from such records, just that various uncertainties demand more, not less, scrutiny of the data. It ought to be a huge red flag when scientists object to that and they have, time and time again.
• Computer models. God save us from the computer models. This is another area that I think has value, but only within reasonable levels of uncertainty. For certain narrow applications, modeling can provide insights into how forces develop and to some degree how they may interact with other forces in the environment. It does not take long though, the larger the scope of the model, for enough uncertainties to pile up in the assumptions that were made to make any particular prediction just as likely as another. In other words, garbage. We are nowhere close to understanding enough about all of the factors that influence climate to predict five years into the future let alone fifty, let alone 100.
• I still get astounded at the blatantly unscientific treatment that this topic gets in the media. Stories nearly always revolve around emotional appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks on skeptics, the highlighting of extreme skeptic views instead of mainstream criticism, and the urgent need to DO SOMETHING NOW that reeks of hysteria.  Actual science almost never has anything to do with it. Then there is the strange way journalists uncritically accept the phony "consensus" in the scientific community. On this issue, among others of course, the mainstream media have utterly failed to provide good information to their readers and viewers. They have assumed the position of propogandists instead of journalists, and then they wonder why their credibility with the public is increasingly in tatters.

The earth's climate and what man may be doing to it is certainly a worthy area of study. So are alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. What we most need on this issue though, is more honesty and integrity and less demagoguery. On this issue there are facts and there are "NPR-like facts." The facts as we know them now do not support a massive and expensive disruption in our energy use. They simply don't. People can huff and puff about deniers all they want and it's not going to change that reality. I do not want the GOP to ignore this issue, I want them to fashion policies that will help us understand what the truth is, not what ideology says the truth should be. The latter being where we are at today.

But Will It Hurt His Minority Support?

I can't help it, this just makes me giggle:

The last name of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney is misspelled as "Whitey" on electronic-voting machines in nearly two dozen wards -- about half in predominantly African-American areas -- and election officials said Wednesday the problem cannot be corrected by Election Day.

The misspelling turned up on touch-screen machines in 23 wards overall. Whitney's name is spelled correctly on the machines' initial screens showing all of the candidates' names, but it is misspelled on review screens that later show a voter his or her choices, said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.

Mr. Whitney actually has a serious complaint here and I think it's unacceptable that something like that can't be fixed with 2 1/2 weeks left before the election. They are either using the wrong system/contractor or they have a pretty damn ineffective Board of Elections in Chicago.

Oh. Wait.

 

Uh Huh

I would like to think that the following excerpt is the dumbest thing I will read today, but the day is young:

Republican-affiliated outside groups have already committed to spend at least $200 million in 2010. Liberal groups, according to a document being circulated among Democrats, have committed to spend just over $7 million.

Anyone who believes that $7 million figure should contact me immediately, as I have one heck of a deal on a bridge in New York. 

Reality:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive incumbent protection program,” according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union.

...

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program.

...

Karen Ackerman, the AFL-CIO’s political director, told reporters on Wednesday that the labor federation will be active in 18 states, will campaign in gubernatorial and Senate races and will likely have a role in 60 to 70 House races this election.

She declined to give a dollar amount.

I realize that we're talking about The Huffington Post here, but Ryan Grim still earns my nomination for reporter tool of the day. 

Another Day...

...another leftist belches out some pointless and stupid pre-election diatribe. I'm not even going to excerpt it, because this one is even dumber than most and notable only for its blatant racism.

Democrats can try all they want to portray conservatives and the Tea Party movement as insane or stupid, but they have an insurmountable problem:

I'm sorry, but you can hunt up all the drooling idiots you want, nothing this election cycle is going to top that for both insane and stupid.

Snort

Hahaha...Sen. John Kerry speaks:

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.

And about 100 million Americans respond as one with, "Yeah, slogans like Hope and Change, you fool."

It's true, you can't make this shit up.

One Year

So, the last day of President Obama's first year in office ended with a Republican elected to fill the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. There is simply not enough room with today's technology to fit the rhetorical grooves needed to spin that as a positive for Obama or any other Democrat. So what now?

First of all, while the practical effects are here to stay until November, the psychological effects will somewhat diminish well before November. Some of that is due to the natural of effect of time passing, but even more important will be how often Scott Brown will reach across the aisle and break with the GOP. It's fantastic that Massachusetts gave the GOP a 41st senator of course, but conservatives who are elated now should also keep in mind that Senator Brown will also be keeping an eye on reelection in a few years. Reelection in a pretty liberal state, pissed off as that state's constituents may be right now. A little realism is in order I think, as Brown will likely achieve the status of RINO in some quarters of the GOP before the year is out. I don't want to put a damper on things, I'm just saying don't make the mistake of thinking he's the second coming of Ronald Reagan or anything.

More important than all of that, is what the response from President Obama and other Democratic leaders will be. There was a split in that party even before the actual election results came in, between the "go all in" crowd and the "whoa, pay attention" crowd, but it will become even more obvious over the next few days. My sort of obscure Custer reference in the title of my post yesterday* should tell you what I think Obama will do("all in"), and I think that's a huge mistake. 

Taking on the big village outside of the Washington beltway may seem like a good idea to those inside the D.C. bubble, but some of the cavalry has already noticed that it's a damned big village. And it's damned hostile right now.

Brown-Coakley was probably only a skirmish. President Obama can choose to press on with his current tactics if he wishes, and I see no sign today of him stopping, but tales of that sort of hubris are many and ancient. It sucks to have your name go down in it history as synonymous with folly, but it really sucks to be one of the nameless troops to die for some idiot's vanity.

(* Custer's last dictated order, I think)