April 28, 2015

"Is Milwaukee County DA interested in pursuing criminal libel prosecutions of his political critics?"

Asks Eugene Volokh, noting that John Chisholm made a bit of a veiled threat toward Governor Scott Walker: "As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin’s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others." That came in response to Walker's saying that the John Doe investigation "was really about people trying to intimidate people," "They were looking for just about anything," and "it was largely a political witch hunt."

Volokh says that Iowa, in fact, does not have a criminal libel law, but Wisconsin does. Is Chisholm serious?
Is DA Chisholm is trying to signal that he may begin using Wisconsin’s own criminal libel law against political figures — or commentators or journalists — who he claims are lying about him (or other political figures)?
Volokh finds "the use of criminal libel law in political disputes... troubling." I'll say. I mean, that was Walker's point — government using its power to intimidate political opponents — and Chisholm's instinct was to threaten to use government power to intimidate political opponents. Of course, that's a despicable chilling of free speech. In fact, it's chilly enough around here that, on proofread, I wondered whether I ought to be writing "threat" and "threaten."

105 comments:

Mike Sylwester said...

Somebody should ask those reporters whether they got their tip from Chisholm's wife.

damikesc said...

They need to pass laws eliminating official immunity. If a public official breaks the law, they should suffer all due consequences.

Gabriel said...

@Ann: I mean, that was Walker's point — government using its power to intimidate political opponents — and Chisholm's instinct was to threaten to use government power to intimidate political opponents.

Well, when you have a hammer, you look for things to pound on.

Big Mike said...

The DA needs to have someone from his party take him in hand and explain why he needs to resign in shame and humiliation for the good of the Democrat party.

eric said...

Its what the left has. They don't have arguments anymore, just threats.

Look at the supreme court case on marriage. Tell me where marriage is in our constitution.

The difference between the left and the right. And yet it's the right that is supposed to be illogical (Anti Science!) and fascist.

Unknown said...

Chisholm is just blabbing nonsense because the heat is on him and he can't handle it. He does not have the balls to dig the hole deeper for himself. I wish he would though.

n.n said...

This post should be tagged with "trigger warning". Not a metaphorical trigger or navigation symbol, but a high-capacity, fascist-style law weapon.

As for Chisholm and the other involved parties, their actions should be considered under the Fourth Amendment. The public Union corporations need better representation and a compatible charter.

Gusty Winds said...

Big Mike said...
The DA needs to have someone from his party take him in hand and explain why he needs to resign in shame and humiliation for the good of the Democrat party.


First, the Democrats would have to actually possess a sense of shame. They love this stuff.

Gahrie said...

I do not beat my wife, and if you accuse me of it again I will punch her in the face.

Skipper said...

When will the Legislature repeal the John Doe law as well as the criminal libel law?

cyrus83 said...

It'd be nice to see this off-the-rails DA recalled by the people of Milwaukee County, but potential organizers might be a little wary of finding themselves on the receiving end of a John Doe investigation.

Gusty Winds said...

With prosecutors like Chisholm out there it becomes clear that the system is so corrupt, it is no longer about 'truth and justice', but rather victory.

He is a dangerous man, and I can't believe this is actually part of Wisconsin.

Curious George said...

I'm guessing all this hubbub is because Walker made Chisholm's wife cry.

sean said...

Chisholm's remarks evidence a major educational failure by the law faculty of Wisconsin, his alma mater. Don't they owe us an apology?

Uncle Pavian said...

On the other hand, Mr. Chisholm still thinks he needs to go through the motions of a formal criminal process, rather than relying on death squads and rogue elements in the security forces.
He's Bad News, but he's no Ed Hanrahan.

t-man said...

Here in Pennsylvania, a grand jury has recommended that the sitting attorney general be indicted for perjury and for disclosing confidential grand jury materials. That same attorney general hired a lawyer and threatened to sue the Philadelphia Inquirer for publishing articles critical of her handling of a corruption investigation.

Ralph Hyatt said...

I was unaware that any place had criminal libel laws. Such a thing would seem to be an invitation to squelch free speech.

Reasonable:

You libel me, I sue you in civil court and I either win or lose. If I win I get some money, perhaps some vindication.

Pretty terrifying:

A prosecutor (or other powerful politician or just big moneyed donor) is criticized and therefore decides that the criticizer should be prosecuted, with the possibility of the criticizer ending up in jail.

Real American said...

The Wisconsin State AG should begin a new John Doe investigation into the leaks from the Chisolm investigation. Obviously, midnight raids on Chisolm''s and his staff's homes will be necessary. Someone alert the media.

Smilin' Jack said...

In fact, it's chilly enough around here that, on proofread, I wondered whether I ought to be writing "threat" and "threaten."

Hee...yeah, looks like Wisconsin bloggers need to find some pics of puppies eating cheese or something to post till this blows over.

Skeptical Voter said...

Who knew that the flaming jerks in the Austin Texas DA's office--long a hotbed of lawsuits intended to demonize political opponents, had sent their clones to Milwaukee?

traditionalguy said...

Chisholm is like a Heresy specialist from The Inquisition days. As bad as his torture tools are, the fear of him accusing you is what he wants.

Gov Perry of Texas has had to face an Inquisition as well.

Trial by a jury was invented to slow down the Chisolms of the world. But Democrat playbook is just to dangle charges of a crime that the. "Indictment " wants to investigate forever, or until the election is lost and the lawyer fees are unplayable, whichever comes first.

Big Mike said...

First, the Democrats would have to actually possess a sense of shame.

If the voters punish them in the next election, if the voters even push back in letters to their representatives, then self-preservation will do what shame cannot.

Rusty said...

In fact, it's chilly enough around here that, on proofread, I wondered whether I ought to be writing "threat" and "threaten."

If it gets people to not talk about the investigation then he will have succeeded.

steve uhr said...

Libel requires a false statement of fact capable of being proven false. Opinions don't count and the quoted language is opinion. Such a case should be thrown out summarily in civil court and esp in criminal court.

SteveR said...

If all you got is threats, you know how garage feels when faced with facts.

EDH said...

“My obligation is simply analyze all [the information] and come to a decision that I think is fair, that is consistent with my ethical obligation not to charge unless I believe that I can demonstrate a crime occurring beyond a reasonable doubt.”

- Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm in re: police shooting Dontre Hamilton 14 times during a physical struggle in which Hamilton grabbed Manney’s baton.

The Drill SGT said...

steve uhr said...
Libel requires a false statement of fact capable of being proven false. Opinions don't count and the quoted language is opinion. Such a case should be thrown out summarily in civil court and esp in criminal court.


and with a public figure, which Chrisholm most certainly is, a proof of malice...

clint said...

Not that veiled.

clint said...

Is there any real prospect of Chrisholm seeing any legal consequences for all of this?

eric said...

He is following the natural consequences of jurisprudence in the United States.

The law is exactly what I think it is. No more, no less.

Steven said...

Wisconsonites will never be free until John Chisholm is strangled with the entrails of Garage Mahal.

Mike said...

Wow this Chisholm guy really makes his intent clear, doesn't he? Progs hate that the 1st Amendment was explicitly written to protect political speech. Assholes like him will be one point in the line taking us from Buckley v Valeo to nearly unregulated campaigns just the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. Thanks overreaching Progs!

Timothy said...

eric, you ask "Tell me where marriage is in our constitution."

It's in the Fourteenth Amendment. Ya know, the one that says that all laws have to apply to people equally and that there aren't some people treated better than other people by their government.

It was written when people were treated differently based on race. But it wasn't limited to race.

It says basically that even if you really really don't like someone because they are black, or The Left, or gay, or a hippie, or whatever, they still get equal access to government services like trial by jury, or right to vote, or marriage licenses, or access to national parks, or anything else. If you stop and think about it, you really do treasure this right... though at the moment you might not much like the people who are utilizing the right to equality.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

I'm sorely tempted to call Wisconsin’s Act 10 the _KLAN WITH A BADGE LAW_ because of how like it is to the KKK's history in the South.

The reason that "John Doe Law" AKA Wisconsin’s Act 10 strikes me that way is how like the M.O. of the Klu Klux Klan it is.

You have "Secret Public Violence" with the perpetrators of the violence being given the de facto power to force its victims to be secret about a public event.

In Wisconsin, the "Klan style" defecto power was made de jure and placed in the hands of the "Deep State" Democratic Left.

Big Mike said...

Is there any real prospect of Chrisholm seeing any legal consequences for all of this?

No.

My (admittedly faint) hope is that the voters of Wisconsin can punish Chisholm by punishing his party in the next election. But those of you who are Wisconsinites and call yourselves independents, do you have a sense of shame? Does this episode not inspire shame at your state's third-world style of government?

damikesc said...

So, Milwaukee, WI has its own Mike Nifong. Congrats.

khesanh0802 said...

With a quick reading it appears that Chisholm aspires to the role in WI that fellow WI native Joseph McCarthy played in DC.

Somebody needs to grab Chisholm by the short hairs and get him off the stage.

Big Mike said...

@Mil-Tech, you've opened a train of thought in my mind. Back in the 19th century there were laws passed to prevent state and local officials from abusing their offices to suppress their political opponents. I think they were called the "Ku Klux Klan Acts" or something like that.

@Althouse, are those laws still on the books? In your opinion as a law professor could Walker and the Wisconsin Republican party sue Chisholm under them.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I'm sorely tempted to call Wisconsin’s Act 10 the _KLAN WITH A BADGE LAW_ because of how like it is to the KKK's history in the South.

Act 10, the law that altered Wisconsin's collective bargaining rules and fringe benefits for public employees, is the law that made Chisholm's wife, a teacher’s union shop steward at a Milwaukee area high school, cry.

The John Doe law is the law that Chisholm was using to raid the homes of prominent, Walker-supporting conservatives.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mil-Tech Bard said...

I'm sorely tempted to call Wisconsin’s Act 10 the _KLAN WITH A BADGE LAW_ because of how like it is to the KKK's history in the South.

The reason that "John Doe Law" AKA Wisconsin’s Act 10


I believe you are confused. Act 10 limited the ability of some public sector unions to negotiate parts of their contracts, as well as requiring yearly recertification and other things. It had nothing to do with authorizing the John Doe investigation.

Or am I missing your point?

Zeb Quinn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Grey Man said...

Where is Garage to tell me how eliminating free speech and targeting political opponents is a GOOD thing?

CWJ said...

If you give the state powers that might be abused, it makes no difference that the first 20 people entrusted with those powers didn't abuse them. It only takes one.

Wisconsin has traded on its reputation as a "good government" state so long that until now perhaps no one noticed the totalitarian tools lying around the workshop just waiting to be picked up and used.

Good intentions are no substitute for limiting government power. And that is the political divide that has ever widened since the New Deal.

(At this point, Althouse rolls her eyes and mutters. Oh Lord, CWJ is my father.)

Rusty said...

SteveR said...
If all you got is threats, you know how garage feels when faced with facts.


The usual suspects fingers must be smoking.

Rusty said...

Steven said...
Wisconsonites will never be free until John Chisholm is strangled with the entrails of Garage Mahal.


Not even Chisholm deserves that.

Zeb Quinn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

can punish Chisholm by punishing his party in the next election.

You seem to suppose that the Republican Party will be offering candidates that are not anti-Science or bedroom-spies or people who know better than your family doctor about what's good for you.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

can punish Chisholm by punishing his party in the next election.

Actually, Wisconsin voters have been punishing all Democrats over this kind of crap for several years now. I hope they keep it up.

Gahrie said...

or people who know better than your family doctor about what's good for you.

Yeah because women go to their family doctor for abortions all of the time.

Apparently those people do know what's good for the unborn baby.

eric said...

It says basically that even if you really really don't like someone because they are black, or The Left, or gay, or a hippie, or whatever

Does the whatever cover polygamy, bestiality, incest, and any other arrangement people may desire?

Why not?

eric said...

Timothy, here is the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which doesn't say that all laws have to apply to people equally, otherwise taxation wouldn't be higher for rich people and lower for poor people.

It's says everyone is due equal "protection" under the law.

richard mcenroe said...

If Garage reads this you'll need to write "throb" and "throbbing."

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, what I think is that you need is to pull your head out of your butt and stop believing so much Democrat propaganda. Does the Republican Party have its share of kooks? Yes. But kooks like John Chisholm are also kooks, and IMHO vastly more dangerous to the social fabric than the Michele Bachmanns of the world.

richard mcenroe said...

khesanh802 -- With the distinction that McCarthy turned out to be right about the commies according to Moscow's own records and Chisholm ain't got squat, agreed.

richard mcenroe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
richard mcenroe said...

Madison Man, who are bigger bedroom spies than the Democrats these days? Who's pushing the bogus Campus Rape Epidemic meme? Who's obsessed with who bakes a cake for whom? The GOP bedroom spies ship has long sailed, and the new flagship has a donkey on the ensign.

damikesc said...

You seem to suppose that the Republican Party will be offering candidates that are not anti-Science or bedroom-spies or people who know better than your family doctor about what's good for you.

Democrats tend to lean towards anti-vaccine and anti-GMO; tend to support laws detailing how one can PROPERLY have sex (a method nobody has used in human history, mind you); and the Dems tend to take away your family doctor from you.

Charlie Martin said...

So far Walker's average has been pretty good. If Chisolm stays with the trend, he could put himself in jail yet.

Richard Dolan said...

Quite extraordinary seeing squeaky clean Wisconsin leading a race to the bottom, as one DA first attempts to squelch political speech supporting an elected official on a theory of 'coordination,' and now suggests that political criticism of governmental actions and actors is a separate crime.

What a world we live in. Thank God it's not Wisconsin.

Alex said...

Too bad this political witch-hunt will go on forever. Milwaukee County bleeds blue and hates Walker for eternity.

Alex said...

Democrats tend to lean towards anti-vaccine...

Most people do not believe this. It's a very small faction in the Democrat Party that subscribes to the anti-vaxers.

Alex said...

nd the Dems tend to take away your family doctor from you.

Prove it.

MadisonMan said...

I did not say that Democrats aren't as guilty. I've got plenty of complaints about any politician.

I'll say this though:

Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

Anti-Science.

Republicans are the ones who allow Creationists to believe they are teaching Science.

Anti-Science.

Alex said...

MadMan - until conservatives are willing to admit the truth of what you just said, there can be no progress.

lemondog said...

A blog written by a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge on John Doe Proceedings in Wisconsin

excerpt:

If a complaint relates to the conduct of the DA in which case the complaint is referred to a special prosecutor

Is someone going to make a complaint against Chrisholm?

damikesc said...

Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

Anti-Science.


Anti-junk science, sure. Guilty.

Don't worry, when it finally goes away, Progressives will claim that they opposed it --- like they have done with eugenics and the like.

Republicans are the ones who allow Creationists to believe they are teaching Science.

Anti-Science.


Again, condemning Republicans for things Democrats do is inherently silly.

And Republican "anti-science" doesn't lead to disease outbreaks or starvation.

Dems, you know, can't make similar claims.

BudBrown said...

So did Chisholm pass the bar exam?

Gabriel said...

@Madison Man:Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

But this hasn't actually happened.

Many Republicans give aid and comfort to creationism in and out of schools, and many Republicans give aid and comfort to any amount of climate "skepticism", but what you say here is simply not true.

Not only has no one been forbidden to "talk" about climate science, none of the funding has even been touched.

Gusty Winds said...

MadisonMan Said...

Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

Wow is that example total bullshit.

When the Dems declare "the debate is over" they're the one's trying to prevent anyone talking about Global Warming / Climate Change / Sustainability.

Or perhaps they just label opponents as 'deniers', rather than engage in a debate.

Here too...with John Doe...don't call your lawyer...but we'll invite the Milwaukee Journal and then lead whatever we want when we can't find a crime.

What a joke.

MadisonMan said...

damikesc you confuse individuals of one party or another with the Party.

I'm sure it's not deliberate.

My beef is with Republican Party platforms, or with what specific Republicans who hold offices are doing.

Apologies for my apparently unclear writing.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Can Chisholm be prosecuted in Wisconsin for his libel against Iowa?

damikesc said...

Prove it.

Obamacare.

Next?

How about this, if the Earth warming is a big problem (evidence not presented to show this), then why has no model showed warming in 18 years?

Why can't models accurately spit out the temperature on days IN THE PAST?

Why can't models yet handle known weather effects like El Nino?

It's a junk science. Little better than phrenology.

Most people do not believe this. It's a very small faction in the Democrat Party that subscribes to the anti-vaxers.

Hell, Obama has voiced anti-vaccine nonsense as recently as 2008, son.

MadisonMan said...


But this hasn't actually happened.

Wrong.

Link.

Republican Party Officials in control, leading the anti-Science crusade.

damikesc said...

My beef is with Republican Party platforms, or with what specific Republicans who hold offices are doing.

The platform calls for creationism to be taught? Really?

As for global warming --- oops, climate change (nothing says "science" like a non-falsifiable theory) --- sorry, the evidence is not there.

If the evidence was there, you wouldn't need to use FOIA requests to GET the data in the first place.

damikesc said...

Republican Party Officials in control, leading the anti-Science crusade.

Where's the anti-science?

They're blocking the indoctrinating of a religion, namely global warming.

It's keeping a church out of schools. We should applaud them.

Gabriel said...

@Madison Man:You seem to suppose that the Republican Party will be offering candidates that are not anti-Science

This one already tackled, and for creationism it's about right.

or bedroom-spies

Thirty years ago, maybe, but its California progressives that are putting "yes means yes" on the books. It's not conservatives who used Title IX to force universities to set up kangaroo tribunals to adjudicate drunken hookups.

or people who know better than your family doctor about what's good for you.

Obamacare, and the future adminstrative decisions made by the IRS as well as HHS, know better than you and your doctor.

When I was young, in the 80s, conservatives did threaten liberty more than progressives did, but now it's the other way around.

damikesc said...

Or perhaps they just label opponents as 'deniers', rather than engage in a debate.

Or they just use fudged data, refuse to release the raw data, blacklist scientists who ask questions, etc.

Why have no predictions come true? Is there any benefit to a "science" with zero predictive value?

Gabriel said...

@Madison Man:Wrong.

Government employees always have to say publicly what their bosses tell them to.

No citizen is forbidden from discussing climate change and no scientist is forbidden to research it--and it never will happen. This isn't the Handmaid's Tale, which, like fascism, is always descending on the Right but landing on the Left.

Meade said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
"Can Chisholm be prosecuted in Wisconsin for his libel against Iowa?"

More importantly (to me): Can Chisholm prosecute me in Wisconsin for pronouncing his name jizm?

MadisonMan said...

As for global warming --- oops, climate change (nothing says "science" like a non-falsifiable theory) --- sorry, the evidence is not there.

Really? No evidence? None at all?

Of course, if you worked for the State Of WI, you could be forbidden from even talking about it! But that's good right?

Republican Party: Anti Science.

CWJ said...

This contretemp with MadisonMan underlines my previous post. When the state has a stake in everything, everything becomes political. You will be made to care.

damikesc said...

Really? No evidence?

Yet ice around ANTARCTICA is at an all time high. Vastly higher than 1981-2000. It's slightly lower in the Arctic

Why? Your second link had no concrete idea why.

If the effect is GLOBAL, it wouldn't be a night and day difference like this. Although it's not night and day --- slight decrease in the North and considerable increase in the South.

Again, if ice is melting at both poles, you'd have an argument.

It's not.

And this is with CO2 increasing considerably.

Of course, if you worked for the State Of WI, you could be forbidden from even talking about it!

So, they'd be arrested if talking about it?

You're ACTUALLY going to try and argue this?

Republican Party: Anti Science.

I'm not sure you, being an acolyte to a laughable faith like AGW, is in a position to judge.

Big Mike said...

@MadMan, can you give me an example of a Republican forbidding people from talking about Climate Change? Because I'm not aware of any. Nor should there be. After all, climate is changing all the time. Between 1000AD and 1400 it was warm enough so that Viking colonies could survive using only Medieval farming technology. Want to try that today? No artificial fertilizers, no fishing (there are no fish bones in the Greenland Viking middens), nothing but what you can grow and what you can harvest.

From the fifteenth century until circa 1850 we were in what's been called the Little Ice Age, when whole villages that had existed for hundreds of years were overrun by glaciers. 1816 has been called "the year with no summer" thanks to the combination of Mt. Tambora and the Little Ice Age (it snowed in Boston in July).

What you need to do is to go read Richard Feynman's famous Cal Tech commencement lecture. Then ask yourself whether Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real science when measured against Feynman's criteria, or "cargo cult science." As Feynman said forty years ago, "we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science."

Here's the key paragraph:

"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

Okay, thanks to Michael Mann (whose hockey stick works only if one ignores the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which we know existed from the historical record, and to the alleged scientists of the IPCC, we have a number of mathematical models, all of which overstate projected warming by large factors.

So I'm sorry if you're all invested in Climate Change, but that makes you the anti-science, not me. I'm just an ordinary mathematician who designs computer systems for a living and who has been building mathematical models to predict the performance of those systems for thirty years or so. I, at least, understand that a model must reflect reality or it is no damned good, no matter how elaborate it may seem. And I've examined some of the mathematical models on which AGW is based, they are crude and complex at the same time, and they have failed to predict the observable climate data for almost two decades. Is there a point where you decide to deal with reality? Or do you plan to keep on sacrificing goats and virgins on the alter of the IPCC?

As to "Creation Science" people, well, I'm with you on that. Sort of. I realize that once you postulate an omnipotent God who could form an earth with all of the fossils in place just to fool us humans. But as a scientific theory it's totally without predictive value. You might just as well have a "Creation Chemistry" where God might decide on a whim that instead of a solid precipitate the reaction should yield cyanide gas and wipe out the instructor and half the class.

You punched one of my hot buttons.

Gahrie said...

@Madisonman

Explain the Medieval Warm Period (also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum) and the following mini ice age(that lasted up to little more than 100 years ago) in a way that wouldn't also explain any current warming.

Michael K said...

"If the voters punish them in the next election, if the voters even push back in letters to their representatives, then self-preservation will do what shame cannot."

No, that will be racist thought crime. You should know about Democrats by now.

Michael K said...

"they still get equal access to government services "

14th Amendment for adults.

Michael K said...

"It's a very small faction in the Democrat Party that subscribes to the anti-vaxers."

It's a very small faction in southern California where Obama goes for donations. It's called West LA.

Michael K said...

"Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change."

Any examples ? This is news to me.

Michael K said...

Great link, Madison Man.

The restriction, approved by a 2-1 vote, prevents 10 staff members at the BCPL from communicating about climate change, including about its potential impacts on 77,000 acres of state timberland. The board uses the income from it for public education projects.

Employees are also required to notify the board's three elected commissioners before answering email inquiries about global warming, and a reference on the board's website to the effects of climbing temperatures on invasive forest species was recently deleted.

State Treasurer Matt Adamczyk, a Republican elected last November, said in an interview that he introduced the ban to keep state employees on task. He disputed allegations by political opponents who say his effort is driven by ideological disagreements about man-made climate change.


It sounds to me like somebody is concerned abut tax payer money spending.

Also Scientific American is a logical source for this stuff.

SteveR said...

Republican Party Platform? mmmm I only see that as bones thrown to the party folks who go to conventions but really not one in a thousand party members would get a passing grade on whats in the platform. Otherwise they make for a good way to define a Republican (or Democrat) without actually meaning anything.

Look here, we are arguing about nothing. Because it means nothing. The platform??

Meade said...

Please stop bullying MadisonMan. If he tells you everything he knows about climate and weather (which is a LOT), Prosecutor Chisholm could come for him with a battering ram. Gov. Walker and the Republicans aside, this is still Progressive Wisconsin. And the walls have ears.

Zeb Quinn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@Meade, I'm angry at MadMad precisely because my training as a mathematician tells me that AGW is what Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman described as "cargo cult science."

Achilles said...

AGW is a power grab by the state. They are trying to pass a carbon tax here in Washington State based off what can only be described as a religion. It is about state money and control over petroleum products which is the lifeblood of our economy.

Quaestor said...

The interesting thing about Progressives (and Fascists, no difference really) is that being without shame or conscience they will reveal their plans for those of us who aren't persuaded by facile sophistry and sexed up "evidence" in detail and without self-consciousness, such as this.

Curious George said...

"MadisonMan said...
Republican Party Officials in control, leading the anti-Science crusade."

Thanks for reminding me what a moron you are.

Democrats:

Against fracking
Against nuclear
Against GMO
Life begins at birth

Now, how do YOU heat your house?
Run the AC in the summer?
Drive a car?
Have a grill?








Quaestor said...

What really shocking about "No Pressure" is that the troglodytes who created that four minute holocaust were completely blind to the effect it would have on morally upright and virtuous people.

To write, produce, film, edit, and distribute that video took months at the very least and involved dozens if not hundreds of people. The fact that of all those minds working over all that time not one stopped to think We're threatening our political opposition with mass murder! WTF? is both revealing and not unprecedented. The postwar trials of SS camp guards and Einsatztruppen indicated very little remorse or regret among the murderers.

CWJ said...

I've noticed over time that when MadisonMan writes on the subject of climate change he generally cites things happening in the oceans that affect oceanic fauna. And not in a doctrinaire way. I don't know these things enough to say yay or nay to his opinions but he is way better than the usual AGW suspects.

So cut him some slack there. Now if he wants to opine on politics. Well have at it.

Unknown said...

(Republicans) when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

Republicans when in power stop wasting valuable resources generating pseudo science to further propagandize Global Warming, er Global Cooling, er, Acid Rain, er Melting Poles ….

Unknown said...


nd the Dems tend to take away your family doctor from you.


Alex said...
Prove it.

Oh, Alex,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/obamacare-patients-without-doctors_n_5044270.html

Lefty site

http://www.westernjournalism.com/cbs-sick-children-losing-access-doctors-obamacare/

mainstream news source

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140513-patients-losing-doctors-under-new-insurance.ece

mainstream news source

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/19/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/index.html

mainstream news source

James Pawlak said...

The DA is a tyrant. President Jefferson prescribed a "Final Solution" for such.

Michael K said...

"because my training as a mathematician tells me that AGW is what Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman described as "cargo cult science."

Feynman actually had even funnier things to say about bad science. The first minute is the best. And is about "Climate Change."

The BubFather said...

BudBrown said...
So did Chisholm pass the bar exam?


I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. He graduated from UW law school and in Wisconsin, if you graduated from a state law school, you don't have to take the bar exam.

Dan Hossley said...

Something is seriously wrong in the worker's paradise known as Wisconsin.

Bruce Hayden said...

Republicans are generally the ones who -- when in power -- forbid people from talking about, say Climate Change.

I find it interesting that the more questionable the "science" behind AGCC, the more it becomes a matter of faith in the Democratic party. As has been pointed out above - it isn't science if it isn't falsifiable, and AGCC is not really falsifiable. And, we got to AGCC because AGW was essentially falsified. Ask yourself, why are they using the same "science", and have the same policy recommendations (actually demands), when AGC, AGW, and AGCC are so different?