Sunday, March 25, 2007

The True Colors of a Global Warming Propagandist

Al Gore proved the weakness of his position on global warming in his recent appearances before the Senate and House Environment & Public Works Committees.

First, Gore demanded that he be granted an unprecedented thirty minute statement before the members could ask questions.
Next, Gore refused to abide by the traditional rule whereby witnesses who appear before a Congressional committee are required to submit statements 48 hours in advance before their appearance. Out of respect for his position as a former Senator and former Vice President, the Senate agreed to require only 24 hours advance notice. Gore ignored this deadline, instead submitting his statement one minute before his appearance in the House, and just hours before his appearance in the Senate.

When Senator James Inhofe, the leading anti-alarmist in Congress, and an expert on global warming science himself, asked Gore questions, Gore tried to filibuster so he wouldn't have to really provide answers. The Democrats tossed softballs so Gore could pedant some more.

It is clear from Gore's actions that he did not want a serious debate over global warming, especially against a prepared opponent who would skewer him in front of the cameras.

What he wanted was a stage where he could spout his propaganda under the guise of "official statements." If Gore really had evidence, he would have enjoyed the give-and-take of a serious debate, especially in the brightly-lit arena of a Congressional committee hearing.
Get ready for July 7, a "day of persuasion" about global warming, according to Gore. Public opinion has been shifting, and Gore is about to lose his lucarative business selling carbon credits to fools. Let that be a lesson: Never mess with a Democrat's money.

Keep It In Your Mind

Hillary 1984 (For TT)

This video is a mashup of the famous "1984" commercial Apple did for the Super Bowl years ago.

I thought it pretty mild. The implied criticism is of her pedantic use of cliches, not her ideas. As another famous Conservative Critic has said, "They're after her cliches, not her substance."

It's gonna get worse for Mrs. Clinton. Much worse.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Yeah, I Got Brackets

Normally I avoid the madness that consumes America in March. I don't really care anything about college basketball unless a local team makes it to the championships.

This year, however, I got caught up in the excitement and paid five dollars to enter a bracket in the office pool. I had to do some cramming to have any credible choices. Herewith (before the tournament starts -- let's see how I do for even one round) my picks:
[Update, 3/15/06: After an 8-0 start, I end the day with 14-2. Stay tuned.]
[Update, 3/17 AM: Stupid Midwest Regional. I'm 27-5, three of the losses coming in the Midwest.]
[Update, 3/17 PM: The Midwest continues its curse. Butler defeats Maryland.]

1st-Round winners
Florida. Arizona. Butler. Maryland. Notre Dame. Oregon. Georgia Tech. Wisconsin
[Update, 3/17 AM: Purdue beats Arizona. Winthrop (?) beats ND. UNLV beats Georgia Tech. I picked the wrong upset.]

2nd-Round winners
Florida. Maryland. Oregon. Wisconsin
[Update, 3/17 PM: Stupid Butler.]

Quarter-Final winners
Florida. Wisconsin

Midwest Winner

1st-Round Winners
Kansas. Kentucky. Virginia Tech. Southern Illinois. Duke. Pittsburgh. Indiana. UCLA.
[Update, 3/15/06: VCU upsets Duke.]

2nd-Round Winners
Kansas. Southern Illinois. Pittsburgh. UCLA.

Quarter-final Winners
Kansas. UCLA

West Winner

1st-Round Winners
North Carolina. Michigan State. USC. Texas. Vanderbilt. Washington State. Boston College (sorry about that, Tech). Georgetown.

2nd-Round Winners
North Carolina. Texas. Washington State. Georgetown.

Quarter-final Winners
North Carolina. Georgetown.

East Winner
North Carolina

1st-Round Winners
Ohio State. BYU. Tennessee. Virginia. Louisville. Texas A&M. Nevada. Memphis.
[Update 3/15/06: Xavier upsets BYU.]
[Update, 3/17 AM: Except for the BYU loss, a good bracket. But I've picked Tennessee over Virginia; keep an eye on that game.]

2nd-Round Winners
Ohio State. Tennessee. Texas A&M. Memphis.
[Update, 3/17 PM: Ohio State escapes Xavier, scoring a 3-pointer to tie it up with two seconds left in regulation, then wins in OT.]

Quarter-final Winners
Ohio State. Memphis.

South Winner
Ohio State

Final Four
North Carolina. Ohio State. Florida. Kansas.

North Carolina - Ohio State. Winner: North Carolina.

Florida - Kansas. Winner: Florida

National Championship Game
North Carolina - Florida
Winner: North Carolina.
Final Score: 86-79

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Next Come the Enviro-Gulags

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats, according to a recent article in the UK Telegraph.

The debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions, reads the article.

Some quotes:

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and [those scientists] feel threatened." -- Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada.

"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges... Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science." -- Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do." -- Dr Myles Allen, Oxford University.

"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system." -- Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist.

That Dead Nag of 2000 Beaten Again

A recent posting about, of all things, the Academy Awards, sent me into a tizzy. The fellow who writes the blog is a lawyer and a Liberal, and in passing he speaks of Al Gore being "robbed" of the presidency. You'd think a guy who went to enough school to become a lawyer would know better.

The Liberal chant of "Selected, not elected" and snide comments -- as though they were fact -- that Bush "stole" the election of 2000 still comes up often enough that I want to articulate a short, factual argument that explains what happened in a clear, straightforward manner.

"Al Gore got more votes than Bush." Gore got more of the popular vote. However, the President of the United States is won in the
electoral college, not by a popular vote. This is established in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Each state legislature determines how its electoral votes will be determined and apportioned. (Note: this becomes very important later in the story.) Most states have a "winner take all" system, so a candidate gets all a state's electoral votes, even if he wins by as little as a 50.1% - 49.9% margin. The candidate with fewer popular votes also won the Presidency in 1876 and 1888. (Note: George Bush still got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did.)

"The U.S. Supreme Court 'selected' Bush." The timeline on this is fairly straightforward.

November 7, 2000 (Election day.) The networks call the vote for the state of Florida for Gore, saying he's the winner before the polls are closed in the Florida panhandle, traditionally a Republican stronghold. (How many Republicans shrugged their shoulders and didn't vote after hearing the news? Might this have given Bush more of the popular vote?) Later, after more votes start coming in, they slam on the breaks and call it for Bush.

Nov 8, 2000 - Early in the morning, Gore concedes. Forty-five minutes later he calls back and unconcedes. His lawyers start screaming for recounts.

Nov 10, 2000 - Bush wins the election in the first recount.

Nov 14, 2000 - Section 102.111 of Florida state election law says that any county returns "not 5:00 p.m. of the seventh day following an election...shall be ignored." Today's the day. Those counties' ballots being recounted would be considered "not received."

Nov 16-17, 2000 - The Florida Supreme Court rules that the counties can continue the recounts (contrary to Florida law,) and order Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris not to certify the results yet. Remember that pesky Section 102.111? The Florida Supreme Court has just ordered Harris to violate it. By extending the deadline to Nov 26, they have changed "seven" to "nineteen."

Nov 18, 2000 - After absentee ballots are counted, Bush wins the election after the second recount.

Nov 21, 2000 - The Florida Supreme Court gives counties five more days to finish their recounts.

Nov 26, 2000 - After the Florida Supreme Court's deadline passes, Secretary Harris certifies the election results and Bush wins by 537 votes.

Nov 27, 2000 - Gore sues to nullify the Florida election. The hearing is set for December 2. On December 4, the judge rules against Gore.

Dec 7, 2000 - Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court, which rules again (contrary to Florida law) that recounts can continue in specific counties.

Dec 12, 2000 - The U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, in effect saying that the ruling violated the Constitution, and that the recounts should stop. Bush wins.

The point of this long series of events is that Florida law, established by the Florida legislature (in accordance with the U.S. Constitution) before the election, was changed by the Florida Supreme Court after the election. (Note: all seven judges on the Florida Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats.) It should never have got that far.

Additionally, Bush won the election in every single official count. Later, a consortium of media did some "what-ifs" with the ballots, and Bush won most of those also. Only by applying extraordinary acrobatics to the ballots did Gore ever win.

Whenever a Liberal starts this nonsense all over again, you have my permission to simply call him a "
stupid head."

Friday, March 09, 2007

Other People Say Smart Stuff VIII

John Hawkins has a new column entitled "Shattering 3 Myths About Liberals." In this column, Hawkins makes a solid case for the following points:

  • Liberals are more racist than Conservatives.
  • Conservatives are more compassionate than Liberals.
  • Liberals are more "religious" (at least about subjects where the science doesn't support them) than Conservatives.

Check it out.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Language and the Conservative Fight

Rush Limbaugh recently discussed the brouhaha over Ann Coulter's use of the word "faggot" in the same mention as Democrat John Edwards, versus the silence over Bill Maher's recommendation that Vice President Cheney should have been assassinated in Afghanistan.

Initially, according to Rush, Conservative bloggers at the CPAC conference condemned Coulter, but were astounded when their readers unanimously supported her.

From Rush's broadcast:
"I think what people misunderstand about the rank-and-file in the Republican Party is that they're sick and tired of taking it on the chin day in and day out. The mainstream press can assault every one of our icons. The mainstream press, the Drive-By Media and the left, can assault every one of our presidential candidates. They can call George Bush "Hitler." They can write movies on how Bush ought to be assassinated, do movies and produce them; write books on how Bush ought to be assassinated; can say that they wish Cheney had been killed -- and there is no condemnation of it. There are a lot of people in the so-called conservative movement who are fed up with the docileness of Republican leaders in Congress, and even in the White House, who just sit by, don't respond, and just take this stuff.

"So when somebody like Ann Coulter comes along and says what she said, they simply react to it. “All right! Somebody's fighting back! Somebody is saying something in return to these people and pointing out their hypocrisy."

From Ann Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal":

" must outrage the enemy. If the Liberal you're arguing with doesn't become speechless with sputtering, impotent rage, you're not doing it right. People don't get angry when lies are told about them; they get angry when the truth is told about them.... Nothing too extreme can be said about Liberals, because it's all true."

Ann Coulter, the Dalai Lama of Conservatism

Sunday, March 04, 2007

If Hillary Were to Win

Remembering how the Clintons left the White House last time:

Source: U.S. General Accountability Office report

"Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition.

The director of the Office of Administration(OA), who had been present during five previous transitions, said that he was "stunned" by what he saw during the 2001 transition and had not seen anything similar during previous ones, particularly in terms of the amount of trash.

Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed:

(1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items;

(2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president;

(3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged "W" keys and broken furniture; and

(4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels.

In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration.

Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.

Most landlords wouldn't even rent these people an apartment. Why should we give them another opportunity to trash the White House (in more ways than one)?

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Gingrich-Cuomo Dialogue

Cooper Union in New York City is sponsoring the "Lincoln at Cooper Union" dialogue series. The purpose of the series is to encourage serious discourse and debate from various sides of the political spectrum. The first of these dialogues was held February 28th with Mario Cuomo and Newt Gingrich in attendance to talk about current issues.

A remarkable debate between two experienced partisan politicians, espousing their ideas brilliantly and articulately. Check it out.

Listen especially carefully to what Gingrich has to say about national security about 20 minutes into his presentation. It will give you pause.

Heroes with Feet of Clay

I'm a big fan of the Bob and Tom radio show. They're funny, have comedians as guests, and help me start my day with a laugh or two. I've paid for a VIP membership for several years so that I can listen to their show at a more convenient time.

On March 2, they read a news story about Al Gore's rampant energy consumption in his Tennessee mansion (see February 26 blog). However, later in the show they "amended" the earlier story. They dismissively attributed the earlier report to the Drudge Report (with no mention of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the group who researched Gore's energy use and made the claim.) Tom Griswold then read from the Wall Street Journal, explaining that Gore purchases "carbon offsets" to make up for his energy consumption.

These "carbon offsets" merely mean that you can consume as much energy as you want, as long as you pay someone else to use less. It's the rich Liberal enviro-nazi copout. Again, other people have to pay the price for their actions. (Did it occur to Al Gore and his devotees that he should consume less and invest in the energy projects he now uses as offsets?)

I was horribly disappointed when B&T backed off the Gore story. They caved to political pressure, either from Liberal listeners or Liberal management. Yet again, the Liberal spin machine is allowed to suppress the truth.