Global warming? Bah, it’s just God tilting the Earth.

So says the nutcase who wrote the following editorial:

Butch Dallmann, Moorhead, Letter: All answers can be found in the Bible

Published Thursday, September 04, 2008

Well, folks, here we go again.
First they try to make us believe in the “big-bang” theory; then the “millions of years” theory; then the “we all came from monkeys” theory or even the “sea” theory.

Let’s get into the real solution as to what happened and read the Bible. Genesis will explain how it all was created.

Now for the global warming story Al Gore and others are pushing on us; it’s time to read Genesis to Revelation in the Bible.

When God sent the rain on this Earth for 40 days and nights, all this water had to go someplace so the Earth would be dry again.

Remember, God is the Creator and controls the universe.

God tilted the Earth from its original position and caused all the excess water to rush to the poles, and there he instantly froze the water into the ice formations that exist today.

Time is ticking down on God’s time clock. With all the nuclear bombs that are made and stored for the fast-emerging last battle, this Earth would burn up when these nuclear bombs are set off.

We are not creating global warming – God is tipping the Earth back to its original position on its axis and thus getting all this ice to get ready to move and extinguish the nuclear destructive fires man will create.

Time is running out, folks. Jesus is coming soon. Do you know him as your personal Savior?

Well that explains everything. How foolish of me to think it could have possibly been anything man might have done. God tilting the Earth is a much more likely possibility than man releasing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.

Ow! I think I sprained my sarcasm muscle.

Remember folks, that guy can vote.

Found at Diatomaceous Earth via Pharyngula.

WSJ op-ed claims “The Dark Night” is actually a homage to George W. Bush.

The Wall Street Journal has always been a conservative rag and I expected to get even more so once it was bought out by Rupert Murdoch, but I didn’t expect him to start hiring editorial writers that are smoking crack:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society—in which people sometimes make the wrong choices—and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

“The Dark Knight,” then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,” “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.

Give me a fucking break. Not being content with ruining every geek’s image of Batman by putting President Bush behind the mask, our esteemed author even manages to work in a Jesus reference:

Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

Because, you see, sometimes you gotta do wrong to protect what’s right. At least that what he appears to be saying:

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them—when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take on those difficult duties themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away—because we have to chase him.”

That’s real moral complexity. And when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised—then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

So it’s not that we want to lock all you furriners up indefinitely and torture you—we honestly hate having to do that—but we’re at that place where such actions are necessary in order to preserve your freedom and not torture you in the future. Or something. It’s hard to tell because I don’t smoke crack myself.

“The War as We Saw It” is an excellent NYT Op Ed.

Go take a moment to read The War as We Saw It at the New York Times. Written by a group of infantrymen and noncommissioned officers it refutes many of the claims of progress made by the Bush Administration. A sample:

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

I’m still torn over the whole Iraq situation as I’m a believer in the idea that we-broke-it-so-we-should-fix-it, but there just doesn’t seem to be any real way to fix Iraq so every day I lean more towards the idea that we should cut our losses and get the hell out so they can fight it out amongst themselves. Which is what they really seem to want to do anyway. Of course if Bush has his way we’ll be in there at least until he leaves office and he’s looking for a way to insure it’ll be years after he’s gone before any real pull out can occur, if at all.