Damnit! Super-Pundit George Will is on to Us! [View all]

[20score]

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:24 PM - Edit history (1)

As every liberal knows, our strength doesn’t come from logic, science and a do-unto-others philosophy; it comes from obscuring the truth with facts. In George Will’s latest column on January 27th, 2013, he lays out the prescription for a conservative revival. When Obama mentions global warming – a science easily disproved by Will in his article – he sets the groundwork for failed policies that the left, especially Obama, were hoping would help impede the economy and keep people on food stamps and welfare. We were so close!

In order for a good conspiracy to work, it must remain hidden. Now that George Will has shown how ridiculous global warming science really is, how can “a cap-and-trade scheme” be implemented? (It goes without saying that this proves how far left the democrats have moved, now that they would champion a republican idea from the 90’s. The 90’s! Those guys were indistinguishable from Stalin.) George Will, expanding on the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins, ‘noted that although 2012 was 2.13 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than 2011, “2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006.”’ We’ve been counting on people being distracted by the fact that the last 330 months have all had an above average temperature, but Will has figured out how irrelevant that information is. What’s important is that sometimes it’s colder than other times, thus blowing a hole the size of the arctic ice cap in climate change science. (Which is, strictly by coincidence, getting smaller every year.)

In the best of all possible futures, Obama and the left would be able to destroy job growth, make the scientists even more powerful than they are now, add trillions and trillions to the debt, put millions more on food stamps and have this go completely unnoticed by the right. But unlike most pundits, George Will wasn’t satisfied with disproving the world’s scientists. He went on to ascertain that Bush’s presidency didn’t matter, in fact, it may not have even happened at all. Quoting Richard Vedder of the American Enterprise Institute, “If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14?million more people contributing to the economy.” Some may call it dishonest to compare the numbers of one democratic president to the numbers of another democratic president without mentioning the recession caused by the republican president in-between; but let’s face it, it’s actually just damn good math.

This isn’t Mr. Will’s first foray into the world of obliterating truth, history and science. One needs to pick and choose what numbers to use when making one’s points. And George knows how to pick and choose. In a February 2009 column, George Will stated the unemployment rate when FDR took office was, “then at 24.9 percent, it was perverse to diagnose the nation's problem as overproduction.” When wanting to show how ineffective FDR’s policies were, he chose 1939 with, “17.2 percent” in a November 2008 article. If he had picked 1940, the number would have been 14.6. See the difference? And all you have to do is ignore the unemployment rate went from 24.9 in 1933 to 16.9 in 1936, in the short period when FDR policies were in effect. After 1936, when austerity became the order of the day, the markets dropped and unemployment rose. Implementing his policies again in 1937/1938, the economy improved dramatically. Picking and choosing dates also works well if you want to discredit Roosevelt’s policies by an easier method. Start the clock in 1929 and end it in 1936, maintaining that it took FDR seven years to bring the market back to its 1929 numbers. The trick here is to make FDR responsible for the four year drop before he took office. Smart, huh?

But that’s not important. Destroying the economy, strengthening the mighty scientists and putting everyone on food stamps is what matters. How are we going to accomplish this with George Will as the smartest pundit in the room?