The Surbinator

Profiles in Surbage: Hypocrisy Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 20:07:00 +0000

I would like to draw attention to the hypocrisy Don Surber demonstrates when he chides Angelina Jolie for banning Fox News from the premier of her movie A Mighty Heart when Don himself has banned nearly all negative commenters from his ~~glorified myspace page~~ blog.

Also according to Don, by demanding that reporters not ask her about her personal life, Angelina was, and I quote, "Desecrating Daniel Pearl." Yeah. Because Don obviously knows that if Daniel Pearl hadn't been murdered, he would have really wanted to ask Angelina about her & Brad's smokin' sex life. How dare she desecrate Danny like that.

No Fucking Shit.

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Wed, 30 May 2007 07:54:00 +0000

Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent at the time her name was leaked.

You were wrong again, Don. As always, I won't be holding my breath for a correction.

Not that this is big news, or news at all to anyone who is connected to reality. It's a dead horse, and it actually pains me to write about it again.

However, this is a really good example of how conservative windbags like Don will consistently ignore established FACTS about all kinds of things if it doesn't support their little pea-brained view of the world -- and then go peddle their lies and misinformation on the opinion pages of newspapers.

I know he was just a "crazy lib," but I think Daniel Patrick Moynihan might have been onto something when he said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Why I Find it Difficult to Read Don Surber's Blog on a Regular Basis

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Mon, 28 May 2007 19:10:00 +0000

He reads a news report about a man who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment immediately after confessing under oath that he abducted a seven-year-old girl from her bed, then took her outside the apartment building where he also lived and proceeded to rape her, and The Surb's outraged that the reporter didn't mention the man's immigration status until the sixth paragraph of the article.

Priorities, Don.

Don, Why Do You Hate Venezuela?

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Sat, 12 May 2007 18:40:00 +0000

Today, Don Surber opens his Saturday column by announcing that he "followed the French presidential election with all the passion [he] give[s] watching Japanese baseball, which is to say none." And yet he can look into the minds of the voters in France and determine why Segolene Royal lost the election.

The reason French voters declined the chance to elect Royal was not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist.
And an anti-American socialist to boot.

I'm sure you can guess what Don's evidence is for Royal's anti-Americanism. Yes, it's because she criticized President Bush. As we all know, in the wingnut world, criticizing Bush = hating America.

Of course, in the same column The Surb criticizes Hugo Chavez, which, by Don's own logic, means he's anti-Venezuelan. Some two-bit columnist for El Nacional should really write an editorial about it.

The Surb Celebrates the Four Year Anniversary of "Mission Accomplished"

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:31:00 +0000

Shorter Don Surber:

This is the war that never ends,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend
Some people started fighting it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue fighting it forever just because --
This is the war that never ends . . .

Profiles in Surbage

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:58:00 +0000

I followed a link left by commenter "Andy Vance" at Surb's place and found this, the Thumb Puppet of Civility:

How the hell did this slip past me? It seems that Don took The Editors to task a while back for driving tens of millions of potential readers away from blogs because of a post they wrote about Tony Snow's gigantic head. It's true, that type of juvenile humor has no place on the internets, and it certainly doesn't meet the high standards set by Don Surber:

Those images were collected from Surber's blog as part of a little research project I conducted a while back. So, if you're following along at home, according to the Surb Standard:

gigantic heads = internet dreck
gigantic boobs = well-reasoned commentary

(Sadly, the T & A blogging had to stop when he moved his blog to the Daily Mail's site.)

Perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, Don's point wasn't that his blog was better than The Editors', but that their blog is crap compared to what you find on the editorial pages of your average newspaper. So let's see what Don thinks is worthy of Charleston's afternoon fishwrap.

He once devoted an entire column to Fark.com. [Link is to the blog where he "cross-posts" all of his print columns, since the DM makes you pay for its archives.] In that column, he quoted such well-respected sources as Programmer Cat and Zeppo Nightshade. Journalism at its finest. And I guess the latest happenings at Fark are of such concern to the residents of Charleston, West Virginia that he devoted a second column to Fark last month.

The Farkers returned the favor by linking to Don's column and having a little Photoshop battle. (Unfortunately, I didn't save the Beaker ones.) There's just something about Surb's photo that invites this sort of thing.

Thanks Andy Vance!

The Daily Mail Pays Don Surber to Make Shit Up

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 20:12:00 +0000

I don't know how much money Don Surber makes, but it's astonishing that he can make a living writing two short columns a week and maintaining a blog. How does that fill up 40 hours a week? He certainly isn't spending any time on research.

Today, Don blogs about a New York Times article that discusses the disproportionate impact of global warming on poorer nations, when it's the wealthier nations who contribute far more to the problem. A research fellow from the Hoover Institution analogized the situation to the sinking of the Titanic:

“Like the sinking of the Titanic, catastrophes are not democratic,” said Henry I. Miller, a fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost. We’ll see the same phenomenon with global warming.”

Don, in his infinite wisdom, responds:

Actually most of the rich men aboard the Titanic went down with the ship. The reason more people died in steerage is that, well, there were more people in steerage.

D'oh! Either Don can't grasp such simple mathematical concepts as fractions and percentages, or he can't read for shit. Either way, he's getting paid for this crap.

Yes, there were more lower class passengers on the Titanic than 1st class passengers, so in raw numbers, more of them died. But, a disproportionate percentage of the lower class passengers died compared to the 1st class passengers. 70.6% of the 2nd & 3rd class passengers died, but only 39.5% of the 1st class passengers died. Put another way, most of the 1st class passengers survived, while most of the lower class passengers perished. This was the research fellow's point: "A much higher fraction of passengers from the cheaper decks were lost."

Did "most of the rich men" go down with the ship as Don says, in a failed attempt to contradict Miller's point? Well, yeah, but most of the poor men went down with the ship too. However, a larger fraction of them died. 68.8% of the men in 1st class were lost, while 88.3% of the men from the cheaper decks were lost.

Among the women and children passengers, the class differential was even more striking. Only 7.1% of the women and children in 1st class died, while 40.6% of the women and children from the cheaper decks died.

All of these and more fun facts can be found in the U.S. Senate Inquiry into the Titanic disaster, which is available online. (Pssst, Don -- this is what's known as a "source.")

Democrats Listening to American Public, Don Surber Listening to Voices in His Head

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:10:00 +0000

The House last week passed a binding war spending bill that requires combat operations in Iraq to cease by September 2008, or sooner, if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Speaker Pelosi correctly noted:

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Don's response?

"The American people? Maybe the people of San Francisco who hate the military, but not those who still allow recruiting in their schools and would gladly welcome the USS Iowa.

Do not be alarmed. Today’s vote was a bone thrown to the boneheads at Kos and the rest of the Netroots crowd. I encourage Code Pink and the rest of the activists to celebrate — burn a soldier or two in effigy. Knock yourselves out.

Because the American people are watching. And they cannot be pleased."

Don is flat-out lying here (not an uncommon occurrence). Based on actual data -- you know, FACTS -- this is exactly what the American people want.

When Americans were asked which plan they prefer for Iraq, 58% said they'd prefer the U.S. to either withdraw all troops immediately or withdraw all troops within 12 months. 26% took what is effectively the "stay the course" option -- withdraw troops, but take as many years as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. Only 13% said the U.S. should send more troops to Iraq.*

In case Don Surber has trouble comprehending all of those words and numbers, I've provided a handy pie chart.

Now what was it that Don said again?

"The American people? Maybe the people of San Francisco[.]"

This is shocking news! I didn't realize nearly 60% of the United States' population lives in San Francisco. That could be problematic. (Don really needs to get a new shtick. That "San Francisco" quip is just so passé.)

Well, but that 58% is still probably just all the lefties and left-leaning Independents, right? WRONG. Here's some more data, broken down by party affiliation.

When asked whether or not they approve of Congress setting a timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year:

79% of Democrats said yes
58% of Independents said yes
39% of Republicans said yes

See? This isn't some fringe/extremist/far-left view. Nearly 40% of all Republicans and 60% of all Independents favor a timetable for withdrawing troops by the end of next year, which should make those Republican presidential candidates quake in their boots. A significant chunk of their own party wants the U.S. to get the hell out of Iraq, and soon.

As for Don Surber, he needs to spend less time in his sheltered little right-wing blog ring and more time finding out what the rest of America really thinks. If there's a "fringe" minority on these issues, Don's in it.

Stephen Colbert said it best:

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty. People love the President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the facts that back him up don't seem to exist. It's the fact that he's certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country. I really feel a dichotomy in the American populace. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?...

Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.' It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality."

* I didn't want to bog this post down with citations, so I'll direct your attention to the Gallup Poll web site, where poll data on these issues and many others are readily available to anyone who's interested in actual facts. The specific data I cited is from polls conducted on March 2-4, 2007 and can be verified by clicking here and here. I'll note that Don's sources are most often other right-wing bloggers. Which is more reliable? You decide.

UPDATE: A new poll released just today by the Pew Research Center shows substantially the same results described above. (via Talking Points Memo)

Hey, I Think I Found a Quarter!

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:05:00 +0000

So, Don says that his latest "theme" is . . . wait for it . . .

"Democrats are picking a presidential candidate, Republicans are picking a president."

Bwahahaha! That's funny, because it's painfully obvious that it's the Republicans who are frantically looking under the couch cushions for a presidential candidate.

Don Surber on the Walter Reed Debacle

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:00 +0000

Unsurprisingly, Don hasn't had much to say about Walter Reed. But hey, neither has Fox News.

But from Surb's Quick Hits:

Jay Rockefeller decries the treatment of soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital. Hey, that’s what government-run hospitals are like, Jay.

No Don. That's what a government-run hospitals turn into when you outsource the work to heartless private contractors who are only in it for the money.

Good God. You'd think a guy who works for a newspaper would like -- actually read the news.

Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and False Statements

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:38:00 +0000

So Scooter Libby was found guilty on four of five counts.

Libby was convicted of:
obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;
making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;
perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;
a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Now wait (you won't have to wait long) for the right-wingers to hammer the point home that Libby was not charged with the underlying crime that Fitzgerald was originally investigating — outing a covert CIA agent — and that somehow this means that this conviction is no big deal. I'll bet you a bottle of Veuve-Clicquot that Don Surber is typing up something to this effect right now.

Obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the FBI are crimes for a reason, and that reason is not merely the elementary notion that lying is bad. They are crimes against our judicial system. When a person obstructs justice, commits perjury, or lies to the FBI, it makes it difficult to impossible for prosecutors, the FBI, grand juries, and courts to serve their purpose — the administration of justice.

Surber has gone as far as arguing that this trial is somehow illegal because Fitzgerald went beyond the scope of his initial investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's name and covert status to the press. What a bonehead. Hey Don — don't you think it's a bit difficult for prosecutors and the FBI to properly investigate possible crimes when they are repeatedly being lied to? If investigators discover that someone they are investigating has committed crimes in an attempt to impede the investigation, are they just supposed to ignore it?

Some right-wingers have said that Libby was being prosecuted on a technicality. "Technicality" is a word people use to mean a violation of a law that they don't give a shit about. When people say that a criminal defendant "got off on a technicality," very often that "technicality" is a violation of the 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments to the Constitution.

Clearly, if this situation were reversed — if a Democratic administration had been investigated and a high-level Democratic official had been tried and convicted of obstructing justice, committing perjury, and lying to the FBI — we'd be reading all sorts of sanctimonious, self-righteous posts from Don and other right-wingers about how horrible it is for someone to disrespect our justice system and try to lie his way out of the situation.

Of course, we don't have to imagine this scenario. I'll let some Republicans speak for themselves about how serious they considered these crimes to be when they thought a Democrat had committed them:

Former Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) — "The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Current Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) — "This is not about the president's personal conduct...When the president commits perjury that clearly is an attack on the judiciary, on the rule of law." [AP, 12/16/98]

Former RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson — "Perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice are public, not private matters, and we must rely on the Independent Counsel and the constitutional process to determine the truth. Tragically, America could have been spared this entire sad saga if the president had told the truth in the first place." [U.S. Newswire 8/18/98]

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) — "Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses which must not be tolerated by anyone in our society." [Washington Post, 2/12/99]

Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) — "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) — "John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, said 'there is no crime more extensively pernicious to society' than perjury, precisely because it 'discolors and poisons the streams of justice.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Senator Michael DeWine (R-OH) — "Obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the very heart of our system of justice...Perjury is also a very serious crime...The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth — so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies — so that injustice may prevail." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — "I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors...Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice." [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) — "As constitutional scholar Charles Cooper said, 'The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system of government, visiting injury immediately on society itself.'" [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]

Senator John Sununu (R-NH) — "These acts are not merely technical violations of federal law; they demonstrate a broad and consistent pattern of behavior designed to corrupt our system of due process. To withhold or delay swift and appropriate action would be to hold a single individual above the law; and, herein lies the tragic precedent which a vote against impeachment creates. A vote against impeachment holds a single individual to a unique standard, above all other citizens, and outside the boundaries of our judicial system." [Union Leader, Sununu Editorial; 12/13/98]

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) — "So for my friends who think that perjury, lying and deceit are in some circumstances acceptable and undeserving of punishment I respectfully disagree." [House Judiciary Committee, 12/1/98]

Former Homeland Under Security Secretary and Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) — "As the Supreme Court said in the 'United States vs. Holland,' quote, 'Perjury, regardless of the setting, is a serious offense that results in incalculable harm to the function of the legal system, as well to private individuals,' end quote. In my judgment, perjury goes to the heart of our judicial process and our very system of government and constitutes a 'high crime and misdemeanor.'" [Opening Statement, 12/11/98]

Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH) — "'Like the one hundred or so individuals currently in jail for perjury, the President must be held accountable for failing to tell the truth while under oath,' Bass said. 'We are a nation of laws, not men, and no man including the President is above the law.'" [Union Leader, 12/15/98]

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) — "Perjury and obstruction of justice are akin to bribery in many ways. Perjury and obstruction go to the corruption of the judicial system. Bribery amounts to the corruption of a bureaucrat. Both prevent citizens from enjoying their rights under the rule of law. Their treatment by the United States Sentencing Commission, the entity that helps set forth penalties for federal crimes, supports the comparison." [Congressional Record, 12/18/98]

Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) — "Lying under oath is perjury, plain and simple," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz. "Can you imagine what happens in court when you suddenly eliminate perjury, if you say you can make exceptions for perjury? . . . For me, it's just a very fundamental question." [Dallas Morning News, 10/11/98]

Rep. Steve Chabot (R - OH) — "It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter." [AP, 2/9/99]

Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) — "The seriousness of the charges — perjury, subornation of witnesses, obstruction of justice — strike at the heart of our basis of our Constitution, the rule of law." [Associated Press, 10/8/98]

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) — "If you commit perjury or obstruct justice, you will be held accountable. If you are a member of Congress or president . . . you will be held accountable. Even if you . . . do a thousand good deeds, you will be held accountable." [Orlando Sentinel, 12/20/98]

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — "All that stands between any of us and tyranny is law." [Sun-Sentinel, 12/19/98]

Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) — "Unless a man is honest," said Coble, "we have no right to keep him in public life. It matters not how brilliant his capacity." Coble added, "It is not sex. It is indeed perjury. It is the lie." [News & Record, 12/19/98]
Ann Coulter — "Perjury? I think perjury's pretty important." [CNBC, 6/12/98]

Ann Coulter — "This is obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements. This is completely a different matter now. It is much higher, much higher level, much bigger deal." [CNN, 1/27/98]

(Keep in mind that President Clinton was never even criminally charged with — let alone tried and convicted for — perjury, obstruction of justice, or making false statements, and the Senate acquitted him of the House's perjury and obstruction of justice charges.)

To be clear, I'm not calling each and every one of the above-quoted people liars or hypocrites. I don't know that all of them have excused Libby's conduct or maligned Fitzgerald for prosecuting him. (For example, Arlen Specter jumps out at me as someone who probably doesn't excuse or diminish Libby's crimes, based on what I know of him.) But quite clearly, the overwhelming sentiment of the Republican party circa the late 1990s was that perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements are very serious crimes against our judicial system and our very system of government, they violate the public trust, and they should not be taken lightly or go unpunished.

But as they say on the internets, IOKIYAR.

Don Surber Thinks Arianna Huffington Gives a Damn About What He Thinks

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:21:00 +0000

Conservatives love them some faux outrage, and Don Surber is no exception.

The assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney in Afghanistan drew praise from a few members of the antiwar left. Have these people lost their minds? At the popular Huffington Post Web site, dozens of comments were posted. Right-wing columnist Michelle Malkin captured them and posted them at her Web site.

Marching orders in hand, Rush et al. were spinning "it" within hours. (Interesting but unrelated question: What percentage of Don's Daily Mail readers even know what a blog is?)

Just for fun, we'll compare: commenters over at places like the Free Republic say unhinged crap all the time (Molly Ivins soooo had it coming!) and all it gets from "us crazy libs" is the occasional mention in the blog world, mostly for our own amusement. Somebody leaves a comment on HuffPo, and within hours Hannity, Rush and the whole right-wing noise machine (which Don soooooo wishes he could be a part of) are running with it.

Arianna responded to the manufactured outrage on her blog and even clued Don in with an email, which you just know he had to tell you about. Ever the starfucker, Don posted his "response" on his blog:

Dear Arianna:

Thanks for insulting my column by labeling it “faux fury.” I have lived through the assassination of a president, the assassination of a spiritual leader, the assassination of a presidential candidate, the paralyzing wounding of another presidential candidate, the wounding of a president and two attempts on the life of President Ford. I take assassinations seriously.

But what Don takes even more seriously is being a sanctimonious shitbag. What, like he's the only person alive who remembers Reagan being shot?

If Surber takes assassination that seriously, you'd think he would distinguish between an actual threat, and an anonymous commenter having a laugh at the expense of one of the most reviled political figures in modern memory.

Proud Members of the Alternate Reality-Based Community

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:50:00 +0000

Surber thinks the reason Guiliani is beating McCain in the polls by 2:1 is opposition to the McCain-Feingold Act, and Glenn Reynolds agrees. But if you're paying attention to public opinion, it's fairly clear that they're dead wrong. Iraq, terrorism, and national security are still the most important issues to voters, and Americans are largely in favor of campaign finance reform.

Of course, it's not breaking news that many conservatives do not reside in the reality-based community. Take one of Surb's commenters, Liz985:

Yes, it’s McCain-Feingold. For a U.S. senator to propose, lobby for, and get passed UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation and then expect to have a chance at the presidency — the man is living in an alternate reality.

You mean the alternate reality in which President Bush signed decidedly unconstitutional legislation into law in 2003 and was reelected president a year later? Oh wait, that's not an alternate reality, that's reality.

What's also reality, whether Liz985 and Surb like it or not, is that the Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I wonder how Don feels about being on the same side as the ACLU.

Well, that didn't take long

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:55:00 +0000

I claimed that I was no longer going to comment on Surber's blog in solidarity with HK, and because I figured it was only a matter of time before he'd ban me too. Well, I couldn't stay away. (So much for solidarity, I guess.) My comment wasn't directed toward Don, though, it was a response to one of his sycophants (here). I just can't let blatant stupidity like that go. In a matter of minutes my comment was deleted and I received an email saying that my comments are no longer welcome. It's the end of an era, folks. I've been commenting on Don's blog since he started one almost exactly two years ago.

So here it is, my very last Surber comment ever. I'll cherish it.

A Unified Theory of Global Warming Derangement Syndrome

noreply@blogger.com (Raging Red) — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:26:00 +0000

You know how right-wing bloggers are always accusing critics of the president of having "Bush Derangement Syndrome?" Considering the fact that approximately 70% of Americans disapprove of Bush, I believe Andrew Sullivan is correct that BDS "is more accurately applied to those who still believe the president is even minimally competent." Our muse here at The Surbinator has had a bad case of BDS for several years now.

He also has a raging case of "Global Warming Derangement Syndrome." GWDS is a very serious condition in which the afflicted goes berserk at any mention of global warming, causing the person to abandon all basic principles of logic and lose his grasp of fundamental scientific facts. Just kidding -- Surber never relies on logic or facts!

Take his most recent outbreak of GWDS: When Surber read a New York Times article entitled "That 'Drought' in Southwest May Be Normal, Report Says," he somehow concluded that scientists are claiming that "normal weather 'proves' global warming." My head hurts when I read sentences like this:

Wait: If drought-like conditions are the norm, how can Global Warming make it worse?

Hold on while I look for some painkillers.

Please allow me to explain. The National Research Council just released a report that reveals that extended periods of drought in the Colorado River Basin are more common than scientists had previously thought. In the future, the region is likely to face droughts of more frequency and/or longer duration than those that occurred in the 20th century. The significance of this finding is that decisions about how to use and allocate water resources in the Southwest have been based on an "overly optimistic forecast of future water availability." The Colorado River Compact was based on the assumption that the average annual flow of the Colorado River is 16.4 million acre feet, but recent studies of tree ring sizes have revealed that the river's average annual flow may be as low as 13 million acre feet. The NY Times article explains that the demands on this already scant resource will become even greater as the population in the Southwest continues its rapid growth and global warming continues to take its toll.

When Surber got to the part that said "global warming is already making things worse," that's when he spewed forth the stupid. I can only assume that when The Surb sees the words "global warming," his brain synapses begin wildly misfiring, impairing basic reading comprehension skills and causing him to forget anything he may have learned about science in elementary school (though he was probably too busy sticking erasers up his nose).

GWDS explains Surber's inability to distinguish between local weather and global climate. Actual Surber quote, from the vault: "Meanwhile it is 32 degrees outside, with a high of 35 expected. After that, temperatures will not climb above freezing for a week in Poca. Still, the global warming people march on." See, it was really cold in Poca, West Virginia for a week, so global warming can't be real!

I think there's more than simple stupidity going on here, though. I agree with Atrios:

Global Warming is one of those "fuck you liberals!" issues for conservatives. The merits of the issue are utterly unimportant to them, they just know that it pisses of[f] liberals and Al Gore and treehuggers to believe it doesn't exist.

Surber believes that global warming is a liberal fascist myth drummed up by elitists who want people to suffer in the interest of realizing some kind of anti-industrial utopian Gaia. He sees the miniscule number of scientists who disagree with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as evidence of the oppression of people who are merely trying to speak truth to power. He thinks the only reason huge, multinational corporations have started coming around and taking steps to ameliorate global warming is because they were coerced into it by big, bad, meanie liberals. It may be the worst case of GWDS I've ever seen, and I'm afraid that so far, there is no cure.

Don Surber: Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:22:00 +0000

I didn't want to let this post go, as it contains a couple of Surber's Greatest Blogging Hits: linking to any ol' shit as if it's gospel, and of course, armchair lawyering.

I am no lawyer but I am wondering why Scooter Libby was indicted. Richard Armitage was the one who ID-ed Joe Wilson’s wife to Bob Novak. But Libby is on trial and Armitage walked?

Seriously? You write for a damn newspaper, dude. You'd think that I shouldn't have to explain the news to newspaper columnists, but hey, this is Charleston. This isn't willful ignorance on Don's part. This is another conservative hack trying perpetuate the meme that obstructing federal law enforcement officers in the course of a criminal investigation isn't a big deal. Way to mislead your readers there, Don.

Hell, even a Washington lawyer is confused. In an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, Victoria Toensing, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, asked: “Could someone please explain to me why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame leak investigation?”

Please. Victoria Toensing is a "Washington lawyer" in the same sense that Bill Donohue is "just a Catholic." They're both established Republican operatives who have axes to grind. Now, working in the AG office under Reagan does not a partisan hack make. But it just so happens that this is not the first thing Victoria Toensing has had to say about the Plame affair, and it's pretty clear that she made up her mind a long time ago, facts be damned. She's still trying to peddle the myth that Plame was not covert, even though her status as a covert officer was clearly established by both the facts introduced during the Libby trial, and by Plame's own co-workers. But I guess being close personal friends with Robert Novak will mess with your mind like that. (Nice of the WaPo to disclose that, huh?)

This trial is a farce and a tragedy. It also is illegal. Fitzgerald was charged with punishing the leaker. Instead, Fitzgerald turned this into punishing those who supported the war, while allowing the leaker to go because he opposed the war.

What, at first you're not a lawyer, but now you're some uber supreme jurist just because you read a deranged op-ed by Victoria Toensing? Please Don. You're free to espouse your half-baked conspiracy theories all you want, but by calling the trial an "illegal farce and tragedy," you're just making yourself sound like a retard. You're out of your depth.

My favorite part though is how Don's post is named "Toensing Speaks Truth to Power." Because at the Daily Mail, "feeding bullshit to your readers" and "speaking truth to power" are the exact same thing.

Hey Don! If You're Tired of Having Your Ass Handed to You on a Plate, Maybe You Should Get a MySpace Page Instead

noreply@blogger.com (Hippie Killer) — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:27:00 +0000

Chances are many of the people reading this have left the occasional comment on Don Surber's blog. And so have I, for whatever reason. I guess when someone goes on about how we should have stayed the course in Vietnam, it's hard not to throw a bullshit flag.

But ever since Don moved his blog over to the Daily Mail's website, not one of my comments has made it out of Don's bottomless moderation pit. What's more, I learned that all of Raging Red's comments went right through--no moderation or anything. Apparently, he enjoys getting slapped around by a woman.

"But surely he hasn't banned me," I thought. I mean, why would he wait until now?

Curious, I sent Don the following email:

Dearest Don,
I have yet to see one of my comments make it out of moderation on your new blog--even the G rated ones. Am I not allowed to comment anymore? I sure hope you haven't taken a page out of the William Stewart playbook.
Best,
HK

To which I received...no response. Classy.

Ever the friend, Raging Red finally left Don a comment asking if I'd been banned. Which he promptly deleted, of course. He then sent Red this:

Dear Red:
I love your comments. HK is free to blog what HK wants. But everything has its consequence.
Don

Well, it is his blog--even though it is part of the Daily Mail, and even though Betty Chilton pays him a handsome salary for writing it. Don is free to take his bat and ball and do whatever he wants. But I would at least think a "professional blogger" would be a little more open about who is and who is not allowed to challenge what he says while atop someone else's soap box.

I can't help but wonder who else Don isn't letting through. Judging by the waning number of comments, I have a sneaking suspicion he has quietly become more parochial since moving his blog over to the 'Mail. But who can blame him? If I had a parade of "readers" lining up to eviscerate my every sentence and otherwise point out how much I have yet to learn about everything from the politics to music, then well, I wouldn't want my coworkers to see that either.

But guess what? If you write hateful, dishonest, illogical, ahistorical, inaccurate warmongering drivel on the website of one of the state's largest newspapers, people will occasionally stop by to tell you that you're full of shit. And they won't always be as nice about it as I am. That's how it works. I'm sorry if Don Surber's fevered ego can't take it.

If you just want to write stuff and have your friends tell you how great you are, there's a place for that on the internet too. It's called MySpace.

In response, Raging Red and I have scratched out our own place on the internets to respond to Don's "work" as we see fit. In the spirit of Malkin Watch and XeniSucks, we proudly roll out The Surbinator. Who knows how often we'll update--I'll admit, I can only take so much Surber. But check in from time to time. And feel free to comment, of course--I probably won't delete anyone. Why would I start now?