Friday, December 28, 2007

A Few Questions Wouldn't Hurt

Pat Sajak -- yes, that Pat Sajak, of "Wheel of Fortune" fame -- has written a column in which he asks ten questions. These are questions that he says make him skeptical of the "manmade global warming" arguments. Some of the questions:

What is the perfect temperature [of the Earth]?

Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

Are there potential benefits to global warming?

How has this movement gained such momentum?

All good questions, the last one especially. Read Sajak's column to find out about the "religious fervor" that global warming alarmists suffer from. And use these questions to poleax the next Liberal who starts in about this.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

The Congressmen Who Hate Christmas reports on a group of nineteen U.S. Congressmen who voted on a resolution recognizing Islam and the holiday of Ramadan -- then either voted "against" or "present" (meaning they refused to support) a resolution similarly recognizing Christianity and Christmas.

The language of the resolutions is nearly identical. The Congressmen who refused to support Christmas while supporting Ramadan are all Democrats. (Full list on the site.)

Whenever you start to think that maybe Conservatives are getting too "vicious" or too "partisan," remember that there are people like these elected representatives, who hold power over all our lives, who support the beliefs of our enemies more than they support American beliefs and traditions.

Although I disagree with those who are anti-religion, I at least respect their right to believe the way they do. Don't get me wrong, I go to great lengths to defeat such people in arguments -- I don't think a single contemporary person's arguments trump 2000 years of believers in Christianity, for example -- but this is America, etc. etc.

Those who I want to remove from public life completely are those who choose to officially sanction other cultures' beliefs over our own.

When you're debating a Liberal, remember these nineteen Democrats who refused to recognize the worth of Christianity and Christmas, but supported the religion of our enemies. It will put a fire in your belly.

Friday, December 21, 2007

As Bill is Bought, So is Hillary

Is it clear to everyone else that when money is given to Bill, Hillary also benefits?

Bill's Clinton Foundation, for example.
Or Bill's employment by the crown prince of Dubai.
Or Bill's offshore investments in the Cayman Islands. (Isn't that done to avoid paying taxes? Isn't Hillary constantly talking about how rich people like Bill and her should pay more taxes?)

Tsk, tsk.

Should the POTUS be involved in so many questionable deals?

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part X - Hillary

"Experience counts."

Sound familiar? Remind you of Hillary Clinton's slogan when comparing herself to Barack Obama?

"Experience counts" is what Richard Nixon used in his campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In his most recent column, "Retro Campaigning," George Will examines the two primary instances of Hillary Clinton's "experience":

The first instance was the selection of her husband's Attorney General. Hillary's criteria was based on chromosomes -- the AG had to be a woman. The first choice was Zoey Baird, who was eliminated when she was found to have hired illegal immigrants as servants and had not paid Social Security taxes on them. The second choice was Kimba Wood, who had also hired an illegal immigrant. The final choice was Janet Reno, whose career as AG is remembered for 1) the botched assault on the Davidian compound in Waco, resulting in 86 deaths, 17 of which were the children the assault was supposed to save; and 2) the extraction at gunpoint of six-year-old Elian Gonzales so he could be sent back to Castro's Cuba.

To quote Will: "The second of Hillary Clinton's important experiences was the drafting, in secret, of a national health care plan. It was so dauntingly baroque and ominously statist that a Congress controlled by her party would not bring it to a vote. "

Her experiences that should matter most to primary voters reveal consistently bad judgment. Her campaign's behavior radiates bad character."

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Al Gore's Snowjob - A Video Response

Since so many people were convinced by Al Gore's propaganda movie "An Inconvenient Truth," maybe the best way to refute his claims is visually. The Heartland Institute thinks so.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

You Might Call It Cognitive Dissonance

Yahoo published an article which tells how miserable Americans think things are. 88% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans say they think "things in this country are headed off on the wrong track."

However, a top paragraph in the article says: "most in the U.S. say they are personally happy and feel in control of their lives and finances, according to an extensive Associated Press-Yahoo! News survey on the mood of voters."

66% say they are personally happy and feel in control of their lives and finances, but that things are on the wrong track. In other words, "I'm doing okay, but I hear things are bad everywhere else."

The power of the media, folks.

To give you an idea of the overall tone of the poll, two of the questions were:

1) "Do you favor or oppose having the federal government intervene to reduce the income differences between the richest and poorest Americans?" (42% favor! How do you think the "federal government" would go about implementing this idea?)

Consider this: Economist Thomas Sowel wrote an article in which he analyzes income data from the Internal Revenue Service. People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005. The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.

2) "Do you favor or oppose canceling the tax cuts passed since 2001 for people who are wealthy?" (41% favor.)

This, despite the fact that the tax rate cuts implemented by the Bush administration have increased the amount of taxes the wealthy pay. (The top 25% of wage earners pay 84.6% of all federal income taxes.)

Dante's Eighth Circle of Hell is reserved for politicians who engage in and exploit the politics of envy and covetousness.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

How UN "Scientists" Work

Much is made by global warming alarmists about the UN's Intergovernmental Panal on Climate Change (IPCC) and its findings, namely that catastrophic global warming (due to mankind's activities) can only be averted through government action.

An article in the Washington Post discusses a similar "crisis" that the UN has addressed for the last several years: the AIDS epidemic. The Post article is entitled "U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic" with the subhead "Population With Virus Overstated by Millions."

Some quotes from the article:

"JOHANNESBURG, Nov. 19 -- The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.

"Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

"The United Nations' AIDS agency, known as UNAIDS....has drawn criticism in recent years [for] being politicized and not scientifically rigorous."

In essence the article says that UN "scientists" have claimed a larger catastrophe than actually existed in order to increase funding and political clout.

Sound familiar?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Debate Ain't Over Yet, Al

John Stossel started his column "Don't Look to Government to Cool Down the Planet" with a reference to his other job:

Recently on "20/20," I said "give me a break" to Al Gore for
claiming that the global-warming debate is over and suggesting that all dissenters were in it for the money. I interviewed independent scientists who say Gore is wrong

In this standout column, Stossel also adds a link to the Science and Public Policy Institute, which prominently displays on its website an article titled ""35 Inconvenient Truths: The Errors in Al Gore's Movie."

Stossel cites experts who criticize the UN's attempt to promote global warming alarmism. "Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science," says Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute. The scientific process ought to be left to play itself out with as little political bias as possible. Politically influenced research is poison to science.

Part of the problem is the IPCC itself. Reiter points out, "It's the inter-governmental panel on climate change. It's governments who nominate people. It's inherently political. Many of the scientists are on the IPCC because they view global warming as a problem that needs to be fixed. They have a vested interest."

Stossel also cites a member of the UN's "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC) who disputes the so-called "consensus" view and reiterates the argument that trying to control CO2 emissions (for the purpose of slowing global warming) is ineffective and a waste of time.

This should be must-reading for everyone, but especially for those who want to clobber those blockheads who insist that the "global warming debate is over" -- blockheads like Al Gore.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Need It Spelled Out For You?

Karl Rove recently wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal opinion page. He succinctly and clearly spells out the failings of the Democrats since they won control of Congress last year:

On the budget. "In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better... The new fiscal year started Oct. 1--five weeks ago--but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill."

Democrats have made clear all their talk about "fiscal discipline" is just that--talk. They're proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a 'relatively small' difference."

On the war in Iraq. "Beholden to and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq.... After promising on the campaign trail to "support our troops," Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members."

On "bipartisanship." "They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn't be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children's health-care program at risk would score political points."

At it's best, Congress is like an orangutan trying to solve a Rubik's cube. At it's worst, it's two orangutans fighting over the Rubik's cube. The Democrats have proved that they are more interested in partisan politics than in trying to do the job for which they were elected.

Term limits. I'm a believer.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

A Quick Thought On: Al Gore

Al Gore makes much about the so-called "consensus" of scientific opinion that he claims supports his theory on global warming. He has recently begun the campaign to stop the media from presenting both sides of the story. Or, as he says in his propaganda piece An Inconvenient Truth, "The debate is over." In other words, the scientists voted, his side won, and we should stop checking.

The reason he wants to stop the scientific "vote" now is that he's lost every other recount he was involved in.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Remembering Abbey Road

To people of a certain age, the Beatles' 1969 album "Abbey Road" meant a lot of things, from such great songs as "Come Together" and "Here Comes the Sun" to the infamous "Paul is dead" clues.

Abbey Road is an actual road in London, where (logically) Abbey Road Studios was located. The Beatles recorded most of their records in Studio 2 of Abbey Road Studios. In 2006, Paul McCartney recorded a show for PBS called "Chaos and Creations at Abbey Road," in Studio 2. Using instruments from the period, he played the very first recorded Beatles song, and traveled through his songwriting career with hits like "Blackbird" and a variation on "Eleanor Rigby." (Plus a quick riff on "Strawberry Fields" on the Mellotron.)

YouTube has the rest of the hour-long special in seven parts. If you're a Beatles/McCartney fan, you'll enjoy spending time watching one of the greatest songwritiers of our time create an intimate experience onstage. Check out all seven parts of "Chaos and Creations at Abbey Road" on YouTube.

Here's part #5:

Saturday, October 20, 2007


Earlier I wrote about a letter that 41 Democrat Senators, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and including presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, sent to Mark Mays, head of ClearChannel Communications, demanding that Rush Limbaugh be punished for what they mischaracterized as calling troops who opposed the war "phony soldiers."

The transcript of Rush's comments, as well as a recording of the conversation (which was with a caller) is readily available. Only an intentional misreading could produce the idea that Rush meant anything close to that of which the Democrats accused him.

The Democrats used Senate floor time to chastise Rush, at the same time making the accusations part of the Congressional record. They used government resources -- time, staff, etc. -- to produce the letter. Forty-one Democrats thought it politically expedient to sign on.

In Your Face
Now Rush has turned the tables on the Democrats. Mark Mays turned the letter over to Rush, who put the letter up for auction on e-Bay. The proceeds from the sale of the letter will be matched by Rush, and the total amount donated to the Marine Corps/Law Enforcement Foundation (MCLEF). Rush challenged the Democrats to also match funds for the charity, but received no response.

The auction went on for a week, generating conversation and excitement about Rush Limbaugh and what he was doing. At the end of the auction, the winning bid was an incredible $2.1 million. With Rush's match, the charity will receive over $4.2 million.

More incredible than the selling price of the letter is the chutzpah of Harry Reid. After using the power of his office to try to destroy Rush Limbaugh, he turned around and tried to take credit for the money that was raised for MCLEF (by Rush Limbaugh.) I don't know if all politicians have no shame, but at least one -- Harry Reid -- doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

The Liberal Response
Meanwhile, Liberals are going bonkers over the situation. With the attack on General Petraeus also backfiring on them, this makes two public humiliations in a row for Liberals. Expect burning buildings and mass protests (since they can't win by debating the issues.)

Sunday, October 14, 2007

David Blaine Street Magic 1 & 2 (Parody)

If you're familiar with the work of David Blaine, and you have any sense of humor at all, you'll laugh until milk comes out of your nose.

WARNING!! STRONG language! (Dirty words)

...and the sequel....

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Who Has More Credibility...


Pop musical group who were forced to return their Grammy awards in disgrace after it was discovered that they had lip-synced their songs, including such hits as "Girl You Know It's True" and "Blame It On The Rain"?



Propagandist, failed politician, and global warming profiteer, winner of an Academy Award and Nobel Peace Prize, whose film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been deemed to be incorrect, false, misleading, or distorting by at least 500 scientists and a British court?

Alfred Nobel is Spinning in His Grave

Alfred Albert "Al" Gore Jr. is the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Experts give their opinions:

Gjermund Hagesaether, of Norway's Progress Party: "We believe it is strange to give the prize to Al Gore for having made a film on climate that is subjective, one-sided and full of one-sided assertions."

Award-winning French geochemist Claude Allegre: "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics, it's designed to intervene in American politics. It's scandalous."

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts: "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was."

Dr. Gray added: "It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out."

Czech President Vaclav Klausa: "[I'm] a bit surprised that Al Gore has received a peace prize because the connection between his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear."

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

What "Living Green" Means to Al Gore

Deborah Corey Barnes wrote an article which recently appeared on that shows exactly which "green" Al Gore is trying hard to generate -- and as you'd expect, it's the color of money.

The money is created by the buying and selling of "carbon offsets." The government would establish arbitrary caps on greenhouse gases for each company. If a company exceeds the amount the government set, it could pay a fine or "buy" pollution credits from another company; if it is under the limit, it could sell the remaining pollution credits to someone else.

What this trading does is create an "emissions market" for traders and brokers to deal in pollution credits. One company already engaged in such activites is Generation Investment Management (GIM), whose chairman and founder is Al Gore.

According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.

Read the article to get an idea of the complex regulatory hijinks Gore & Co. are pulling, in order to cash in. If you've ever wondered where Al Gore got his zeal for this global warming stuff, this will help you answer that question.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Hack Journalist vs The Republican Survival Instinct

The Republican Presidential Candidates will debate tomorrow evening (October 9,) and the press is emphasizing the point that it's the first time that Fred Thompson will participate in a debate.

More important, however, will be the behavior of the moderator of the debate, Chris Matthews.

Matthews is the host of MSNBC's "Hardball." At the 10th anniversary party for his “Hardball” show Thursday night in Washington, D.C., Matthews remarked that the Bush administration had "finally been caught in their criminality." He was referring to purported calls from Vice President Dick Cheney's office to MSNBC brass complaining about Matthews' biased comments and coverage on his show.

Another Matthews gem: “God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We’d all be under a parking lot.”

MSNBC parent company NBC, which covered the event, refused to release video of Matthews' remarks to the press. They should change their initials to "CYA."

Let's hope that journalist Matthews is put and kept in his place by these men who aspire to become the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

The Media Begins Its Turn on Al Gore

Recently CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands on CNN’s “American Morning” and exclaimed, “Finally,” in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” from UK schools because, according to the broadcast “it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies.”

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano added during the October 4 broadcast. “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Read more here.

Challenge to "Consensus" on Global Warming

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.

More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

The rest of the article is here.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

And Now, for Something A Little Different....

UC Men's Octet - Bohemian Rhapsody....a capella

Call Him Mjolnir*

"There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them." -- Tom Delay

Former House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" Delay was interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today Show recently. Lauer started the interview with a laundry list of Republican scandals -- Mark Foley, David Vitter, the Republicans caught up with lobbyist Jack Abramoff -- and this is how the interview went:

LAUER: So I went through a litany there, and maybe I should start by stepping back. We've got two members out of 49 Republican senators in office right now embroiled in controversy. So do we have a party embroiled in scandal or do we have two bad apples?

DELAY: Well, I hate to say this Matt, but you just showed the problem, the double-standard, and you just participated in it. You listed a whole lot of scandals that involve the Republicans but you didn't mention one Democrat.

LAUER: But you didn't hear me. I also just said do we only have two bad apples or is there a case of an entire party embroiled in scandal?

DELAY: I think in your premise if you had listed all the Democrats that are having problems right now it would have been different. You see the Democrats re-elect the people with their problems; the Republicans kick them out. If you look at what's going on, it's how you handle it as a party and as a political group.

DELAY: The double-standard in the media is amazing. The feeding frenzy, the sharks in the water that's going on right now because of a Republican. Where is the frenzy on Alan Mollohan from West Virginia or William Jefferson from Louisiana?

LAUER: I think you mentioned William Jefferson. There was an awful lot of coverage of William Jefferson when that story broke, congressman. [Note: NBC's "Today" has never once aired an NBC reporter explaining the Jefferson scandal. All that's dribbled out are a few 50-word anchor-read droplets. - kw]

DELAY: Yeah, for just a couple of days and then we went on. In the case of a Republican, believe me I've experienced this, it's day in and day out in the media, and they write this story over and over and over again. We all know the double-standard in the media -- it's amazing.

LAUER: I'm not going to let it, you know, end with that assumption, congressman, because I clearly don't agree with it, but why don't we just say . . .

DELAY: You exhibited it, Matt!

LAUER: You know what, congressman? I think it's unfair. Because I listed a list of problems and then immediately –

DELAY: All Republicans.

LAUER: Well we're talking about the Republican party. You just said, I invited you on to talk about the GOP.

DELAY: Because you don't want to talk about the Democrats.

LAUER: And I also started, congressman, and then said "is this a misperception that there is a party embroiled in scandal when we may just have two bad apples?" That's exactly how I started my first question.

DELAY: No, you started the first question by listing a bunch of Republicans and didn't mention one Democrat.

LAUER: Because we're talking --

DELAY: About the situation that's going on in Washington today and including both Democrats and Republicans. There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.

LAUER: Alright congressman, I'll let you have the last word. It's good to have you on.

DELAY: Thank you.

* For those non-comic book readers and Norse mythology non-experts out there: In Norse mythology, Mjolnir is the magical hammer of Thor, the god of thunder, lightning, wind, and rain.

About Universal Healthcare

When something is provided by the government, it can always be withheld.

From the London Evening Standard:

"NHS [National Health Service] should
not treat those with unhealthy lifestyles" say Tories

"Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free
NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.

"...heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could
be denied some routine treatments
such as hip replacements until they
cleaned up their act."
As nice as something like "free" healthcare sounds, think about other government-provided medical services that already exist. When was the last time someone bragged about the great service at the VA Hospitals (see Walter Reed) or how wonderful Medicare is?

Now think about federal highway funds, and how the US government uses them to control what the states do. It's legal blackmail, courtesy of your government.

That's what "Universal Healthcare" means.

Sunday, September 02, 2007

Democrats and Benchmarks for Iraq

A Video You Don't See That Often

Lest anyone forget what happened, this is a video of Palestinians dancing in the streets when they heard about the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The video has been attacked on the internet as faked, but confirmed its validity and debunked the internet rumor.

Remember, this Palestinian celebration was before we invaded Iraq.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Another Strike Against Bad Scientific Arguments

Yet another report has come out disputing the concept of a "consensus" of scientists who promote the "humans are responsible for cataclysmic global climate change" hysteria. This one's big.

In his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore cites a 2004 study by history professor Naomi Oreskes of 928 scientific articles written from 1993 to 2003. In this study, Oreskes claims that no articles disputed the alarmists' theory. She claimed (athough her research has been disputed) that a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans having at least some effect on global climate change. This is the origin of the argument of "consensus." (Sidebar: Look
here to see what damage a consensus of scientists can do.)

Remember the watered-down definition of "consensus" here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the primary cause of warming, it also doesn't require any belief or support for catastrophic global warming.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. There is no "consensus."

In fact, of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007.) Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."

The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the portion always quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary.

The Difference Between Larry Craig and Bill Clinton

Craig solicited sex in a public restroom.
Clinton solicited sex in the Oval Office.

Craig is a disgraced Republican, forced to resign.
Clinton is a hero to Democrats, and makes millions of dollars by giving speeches in Dubai on how to influence American foreign policy. (Step One: donate to Hillary's campaign.)

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The Impartial Liberal Media

Republican Senator Larry Craig recently confirmed that he had been arrested in June for "disorderly conduct" associated with soliciting sex from another man in a public restroom.

Senator Craig will soon leave office, either by resignation or being voted out (aka "choosing not to run.") If he acted as accused, then he probably deserves whatever he gets.

The Idaho Statesman newspaper has been the leading force in investigating rumors of Craig's supposed habit of "cruising" public restrooms. They report that they interviewed 300 people in pursuit of their story.

When was the last time you heard of a newspaper expending that much energy in pursuit of a Democrat scandal?

Monday, August 27, 2007

Surprising Number

Only five percent of America's 3.7 million square miles is developed.

That means that 3,515,000 square miles are un-developed.

To put it into perspective, it's as if the entire United States is undeveloped, except for Montana and Indiana.

That's a lot of empty land.

The Affluent Poor

The Census Bureau will release its annual report on poverty in America tomorrow. The report will show, as it has in recent years that around 37 million people live in official poverty.

Here is a snapshot of America's poor:
  • 46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

  • 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

  • Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

  • Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

  • 97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

  • 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player. 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

  • 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

The next time John Edwards or some other pandering politician talks about the "poor," consider how today's American poor live, compared to the lifestyles of our parents and grandparents.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Global Warming Claims DEBUNKED

It's been a while since I addressed global warming. Lately what's bothered me has been the absolute rage and poison the global warming alarmists have shown towards those who question their claims. It's an unattractive blend of arrogance and venom.

Speaking at the American leg of Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., referring to skeptics of man-made global warming, said "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."

From Al Gore: "There has been an organized create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community. In actuality, there is very little disagreement. This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science." And incredibly, "We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion."

Okay, that "consensus" bit again. In his money-making propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore cites a study of 928 scientific papers, none of which (Gore claims) disagree with the "consensus" opinion.

Shortly thereafter, Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, conducted his own study of the exact same papers, and found that "only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly."

Meanwhile another study conducted in 2003 indicates that climate scientists are actually about evenly split over the question of whether climate change is primarily due to mankind's activities. In fact, slightly more strongly disagreed with that position than strongly agreed.

Another set of claims are: 1) The hottest 10 years in the last century have all occurred since 1980. 2) 1998 was the hottest year on record, and 2001 was the second-hottest. 3) January-March, 2002, was the hottest such period on record.

In fact, NASA recently corrected faulty data regarding its temperatures. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

SUMMARY: The claims of an "overwhelming consensus" and "the '90s were the hottest decade in history, and '98 the hottest year" have been debunked.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Laughing at Libs

If you've ever thought that Conservatives just don't have a sense of humor, check out

Below is a sample of the unique humor to be found there.

Friday, August 03, 2007

[The Swiss] Got Rhythm

Proving that there's more to Switzerland than cuckoo clocks, chocolate and neutrality.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The More Things Change

America has had great parties, but they exist no longer…I cannot conceive a more wretched sight in the world than that presented by different coteries (they do not deserve the name of parties) which now divide the [United States].

“It is a shame to see what coarse insults, what petty slanders and what impudent calumnies fill the papers that serve as their mouthpieces.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, “On Great and Small Parties,” (1831)

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Newt: The Phony War

"We have two choices: We can find a way to be reasonable and surrender, or we can defeat them." - Newt Gingrich

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Random Werewolf Thoughts

1981 holds a place in my heart as the best year ever for werewolf movies. Three of the best werewolf movies ever made -- The Howling, Wolfen, and An American Werewolf in London -- were all released that year.

The Howling, based on the novel of the same name by Gary Brandner, was released in April, 1981. From IMDB: "Eye-popping special effects highlight an updated werewolf story. TV newswoman, Karen White, [played by Dee Wallace, who also played the mother in Cujo - kw] goes on a retreat after a traumatic incident with a serial killer. But is she really safe? And what should she fear more: regaining her memory or the creepy residents of "The Colony?"

Wolfen, based on the novel by Whitley Strieber, was released in July, 1981. It featured the best cast of the three movies, with Albert Finney, Edward James Olmos and Gregory Hines. From IMDB: " A city cop [Finney] is assigned to solve a bizarre set of violent murders where it appears that the victoms were killed by animals. In his pursuit he learns of an Indian legend about wolf spirits."

An American Werewolf in London, directed by John Landis (Animal House, The Blues Brothers) was released in August, 1981, and is the best-made of the three. It stars David Naughton ("I drink Dr. Pepper and I'm proud...") and Griffin Dunne, who plays Naughton's best friend and werewolf victim who keeps returning, in a hilariously ever-more-decomposing state. From IMDB: "Two American students are on a walking tour of England and are attacked by a Werewolf. One is killed, the other is mauled. The Werewolf is killed, but reverts to it's human form, and the townspeople are able to deny it's existence. The surviving student begins to have nightmares of hunting on 4 feet at first, but then finds that his friend and other recent victims appear to him, demanding that he find a way to die to release them from their curse, being trapped between worlds because of their unnatural death."

Even though they were released within months of each other, the three movies approach the traditional werewolf legend from different perspectives. If you ever want to have a "werewolf movie weekend," these three have to be on the schedule.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

A Riot is an Ugly Thing

"A riot is an ugly thing... undt, I tink, that it is chust about time ve had vun!" -- Inspector Kemp (Kenneth Mars), "Young Frankenstein" (1974)

One of the worst riots in US history occurred in 1863. During the New York City Draft Riots, more than 100 people were killed and dozens of buildings burned and destroyed. The rioting was in response to strict draft laws imposed by Abraham Lincoln to bolster Union troops.

All male citizens between twenty and thirty-five and all unmarried men between thirty-five and forty-five years of age were subject to military duty. The federal government entered all eligible men into a lottery.

The rioters -- mainly poor Irish -- were enraged at one provision of the draft law: Those who could afford to hire a substitute or pay the government three hundred dollars might avoid enlistment.


Segue to today's global warming debate. One of the tactics that global warming alarmist celebrities such as Al Gore (or performers at the recent "Live Earth" concerts) use is to purchase "carbon offsets." They live their lives any way they want, using ten times as much energy as the average citizen, then investing in companies that claim to plant trees or provide solar panels to third world countries, or some such. (Aren't they just outsourcing their own climate damage to poor people?)

In essence, the rich can pollute or use as much energy as they want, because they can buy "carbon offsets," while the rest of us have to change our lifestyles to accomodate their demands. "Do what I say, not what I do" has never been better illustrated. Many people refer to the concerts and the celebrity musicians' lifestyles as "private jets for climate change."

Like the Civil War draft laws, once again the rich can buy their way out of the responsibilities that they are desperately trying to impose on the rest of us -- If we let them make up the rules of the game.

So far hypocrites like Al Gore and Madonna (who uses 100 times the amount of energy the average Briton uses, according to one report) have been able to slide by with the "carbon offset" gimmick. The media refuse to point out the blatant violation of principle these energy hogs casually ignore.

So, while a riot is an ugly thing, will future historians talk about the "Carbon Riots" of the early 21st century?

Saturday, July 07, 2007

The Pork Merchants

Robert Novak wrote recently about a minor skirmish over earmarks in Congress. The battle's not about whether or not Congress will continue to spend our money for political purposes -- remember the $315 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska -- but a battle as to who will get the most.

According to Novak's article, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) regularly proposes amendments to remove earmarks from Interior and Financial Services bills. As you might expect, the House regularly votes these amendments down; this is money they've worked hard to spend.

But one earmark-removing amendment passed: a $129,000 grant to the Perfect Christmas Tree project in Mitchell County, North Carolina. In recent years the area has lost over 2500 textile, furniture and other manufacturing sector jobs to outsourcing. With entrepreneurial development as a primary focus, the project has created 30 individual small businesses. The project also serves as a scholarship tool, with a portion of royalties received from product sales used to fund a scholarship program is to combat the alarmingly low student retention rate at Mitchell High School, the only high school in the county.

The reason for the "cost-cutting" measure? The grant was requested by a young conservative, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who has fought to make earmarks more transparent, or open to public inspection. McHenry thought this relatively low-cost, relatively productive earmark of his own would sail through like all the others.

Instead, to quote Novak, "[the] amendment [to not fund McHenry's project] passed by a large margin, 249 to 174, with support from more than 140 Democrats who had never previously dreamed of voting against any earmark.

"The message was clear: Any member who opposes our corrupt system of favors and earmarks becomes persona non grata with the appropriations committee and his pork-barreling colleagues. It is, naturally, out of the question for such an uncooperative member to get his own earmarks. McHenry was humiliated but given a lesson on congressional power."

Congress no longer considers its job as passing effective legislation. They have become pork merchants, using our money to buy votes that they can't earn honestly. Anyone who tries to prevent them from spending our money is punished. Republicans and Democrats alike are sucked into this vile game, regardless of their good intentions when they first go to Washington D.C.

If ever there was an argument for term limits, this is it.

Sunday, July 01, 2007

Gore the Mountebank*

"We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." -- Al Gore, "The Assault on Reason"

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims. -- James M. Taylor, "Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny," Chicago Sun-Times, June 30, 2007.

Read the entire Chicago Sun-Times article here.


*mountebank - "a person who sells quack medicines, as from a platform in public places, attracting and influencing an audience by tricks, storytelling, etc"

Newt: "I'd be willing to be president."

Lloyd Grove has an article in the Washington Post today, giving one of the better-balanced pieces I've ever seen about Newt Gingrich.

Some highlights from the article:

On running for President: He says he'll give his final answer by Oct. 1.

On waiting so late to announce his candidacy: Gingrich, for his part, dismisses warnings that October will be too late for a non-billionaire to jump into the race and raise the necessary cash. "Do you know the approximate size of the U.S. economy? About $14 trillion. ... if you assume we live in a country of 300 million people, a substantial number of whom will not have contributed to anybody, we'll have to see. Assume for a minute that one of the three [Republican] front-runners collapses. How many supporters does that make available?"

On Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani: Gingrich has been carefully cultivating key Republican constituencies, especially Christian activists who might balk at nominating a formerly liberal Mormon who claims to have seen the light or a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control, occasionally cross-dressing, thrice-married Yankees fan.

On John McCain: "I like John," Gingrich says, "but the combination of McCain-Feingold [the widely despised campaign finance law] and McCain-Kennedy [the hated immigration bill] is a tad heavy."

On Fred Thompson: "I think he becomes the establishment alternative," Gingrich says. "I've been fond of Fred ever since 'The Hunt for Red October.' I think he was totally convincing as an admiral."

On his marital infidelities: [Newt] had already taken the extraordinary step of going on right-wing evangelical leader James Dobson's radio show to admit committing the sin of adultery..."It's like talking to your mom. There are things in life you just don't want to go home and tell mom. But it was my intuitive judgment that this was a room I had to walk through. If I never walked through it, I'd always be on the other side of the door."

Newt has huge ideas about changing government, and the presidency is only a small part, a possible step in that process: "I want to make sure by the time we're done that in 511,000 elective positions" -- apparently the whole of U.S. officialdom -- "there are people who understand the 21st century, understand American civilization, and have fundamentally changed government at all levels."

"And if, in that process, I become president -- that's fine."

Saturday, June 30, 2007

"Oops, My Bad" Doesn't Quite Cut It

Over the last few days car bombs have been discovered pre-explosion in London, and an SUV afire and loaded with explosives was crashed into an airport building in Glasgow, Scotland.

My question to the anti-war Liberals and Democrats: What kind of punishment will be appropriate for you if you have your way and troops are pulled from Iraq before any kind of acceptable resolution (i.e., our side wins) and the scene above happens in Lubbock, or Omaha, or Reno or Nashville?

What kind of "my fault" will you be able to utter that can ever correct the havoc you allowed to unleash?

The big question I have is: What if you're wrong?

Monday, June 25, 2007

At Least Somebody in the Family's Got Talent

A reporter in the family placed 4th in his division in the Texas Press Association's 2007 "Better Newspaper Contest" in the "Sports Photo" competition.

Proving that luck beats skill every time.

Good job, bro.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Newt on Border Security

It's just a matter of time, kids. Newt's campaigning without even being in the race...yet.

Too Cool: Bruce Lee

This is Bruce Lee's screen test, circa 1964, for the part of Kato in The Green Hornet TV series.

Friday, June 22, 2007

The Enemy Within

While there's a huge debate over illegal immigration, the biggest threats we face may not be from people crossing the border.

Not-yet-announced Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson recently wrote an interesting column for He revealed some alarming facts about CAIR -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations. (I've written about CAIR before.)

According to Thompson, who cited IRS data, "CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000....

"Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?"

Important note: Part of that $3 million is being spent to silence Americans who speak up about suspicious activity.

My Apologies... both of my readers for my long absence from the blog. Vacation is over. Back to work.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

You Want Drama?

Watch this video if you want to see more dramatic action than you've ever seen before.

Think "Blackhawk Down" in the animal world.

(Yes, stolen from Barry, MW.)

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Cool News About Global Warming

A recent press release from "The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works" detailed how many former "pro global warming" scientists have changed their minds, and are now skeptics.

Dr. David Evans, a mathematician and engineer who formerly did carbon counting for the Australian government, gave a credible, logical reason for his conversion:

“I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog.

“But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.

“As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”

The List

Other experts quoted in the article include Dr. Claude Allegre, a top French geophysicist; geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta; Dr. Nir Shaviv, a top Israeli scientist; Dr. Tad Murty, former Science Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada; Dr. David Bellamy, UK botanist; Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist at the University of Auckland, NZ; meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson; Hans H.J. Labohm, global warming author and economist; paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottawa; physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw; paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa; environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa...

You get the idea. There's a lot of 'em, and they have very impressive credentials.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The Worst Drivers

How many times have I heard out-of-towners, especially those from larger Texas towns, badmouth Lubbock drivers.

Well, Men's Health magazine recently came out with its Metrograde ranking of drivers in 100 American cities. The worst drivers in the country were in Columbia, SC, #100. Of interest to me were drivers in Corpus Christi (#91, Grade D-); Dallas (#86, Grade D); #75 San Antonio (Grade D+); #64 Fort Worth (Grade C-); #59 Austin (Grade C-); #48 Arlington (Grade C); and #54 Houston (Grade C).

Lubbock came in at #36, with a B-. Of large Texas cities, only El Paso (#25, B) had better drivers. All the rest were worse.

So all you "Lubbock drivers are the worst" proclaimers can kiss my rear bumper.