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 campaign....to 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.

Laughing at Libs

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

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

[The Swiss] Got Rhythm

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

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)

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

Newt: FedEx vs Government Bureaucracy

The Man in action.

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.

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?

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.

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."

"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?

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.

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.

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 Townhall.com. 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...

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

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.)

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.

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.

Sometimes I Say Smart Stuff, Too

ABC News has a report today with the headline "Gingrich Says There Is a 'Great Possibility' He Will Run for President".

When I wrote this post back in August of last year, who would have thought the situation would follow my predictions so precisely? George Allen disintegrated quicker than I thought he would; Mitt Romney has taken up the "conservative" mantle (or tried to); and Fred Thompson is a wild card I didn't foresee.

Not bad for a hick from the sticks, huh?

Would You Believe Five Days?

An interview with Dr. Reid A. Bryson* in the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News (WECN) revealed what a prominent climatologist thinks about manmade climate change.
.
(Note: "Outward heat radiation" is the amount of heat from the sun which is either absorbed or reflected back.)
.
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
.
WECN: There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference.
.
WECN: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

Reid: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

.
Researchers run widely publicized mathematical models through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future.

Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, Dr. Reid replies: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

***

* Dr. Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Soldiers Coming Home

Just to prove to yourself that you still have a heart.

Off to See the Wizard

Four United States Presidents get caught up in a tornado,and they are whirled off to the land of OZ.

They finally make it to the Emerald City and go to find the Great Wizard .

"What brings the four of you before the great Wizard of Oz?"

Jimmy Carter steps forward timidly.

"I've come for some courage."


No Problem!" says theWizard. "Who's next?"

***

Richard Nixon steps forward.

"Well, I think I need a heart."

"Done!" says the Wizard. "Who comes next before the Great and Powerful Oz?"

***

Up steps Bush.

"I'm told by the American people that I need a brain."



"No problem!" says the Wizard. "Consider it done."
***

Then there is a great silence in the hall. Bill Clinton stands there, looking around. He doesn't say a word.


Irritated, the Wizard finally asks, "Well, what do you want?"

"IS DOROTHY HERE? "

Calhoun on Liberty, Taxes and Progress

John C. Calhoun (March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was a leading United States politician and political philosopher from South Carolina during the first half of the 19th century. He served as state Senator, U.S. Representative, Secretary of War (under under James Monroe), Vice-President (under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson), U.S. Senator and Secretary of State (under John Tyler).

"Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity*, energy, perseverance, skill, habit of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity — the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them.

"The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions.

"But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty — while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, could be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition.

"It is, indeed, this inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks, in the march of progress, which gives so strong an impulse to the former to maintain their position, and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse."

-- John C. Calhoun, "Disquisition on Government," (published posthumously, 1851)



*sagacity - "acuteness of mental discernment and soundness of judgment"

From Sublime to Foolish

In a scene from the Tom Hanks movie The Green Mile, miracle-worker John Coffey describes how a killer made a little girl be quiet and not sound an alarm when he took her sister: "He killed them with their love. With their love for each other. That's how it is, every day, all over the world." (Quick wrap-up of the movie: the killer murders both of the girls, but receives justice later.)

Love is an emotion that is basic to humanity. It takes a special kind of psychopath to turn something like that into a weapon to be used against innocents.

Likewise, freedom and justice are principles basic to humanity and civilization. Freedom and justice are virtues universal enough to be written into the U.S. Constitution, and form the backbone of our country.

Now those same virtues are being used against us. Recently, a misquided soul has written a series of letters to a smalltown newspaper, promulgating the fact that he hates George W. Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, everything they do, and all they represent.

His latest tirade deals with habeas corpus, and a recent move by the Senate to limit the ability of Guantanamo Bay detainees to access U.S. courts. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against a GB detainee's access.

There are too many details to go into about this, but one thing the abovementioned myope, and others who feel as he does, chooses to ignore is that these people were captured trying to kill Americans at war.

The tactic they want to use -- and which is oh-so-clear to me -- is to use our own systems against us. The GB detainees want to choke the court with cases, subpoena-ing the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense et al, in order to disrupt the government. Meanwhile, they'll be able to get headlines every day as the press rushes to report every tidbit of scandal they can gather or make up. As we've seen in the Duke lacrosse "rape" case, the press doesn't need facts in order to run a story.

(Sidequote on the press: "The press supplies an endless stimulus to popular imagination; the press lives upon heat and coarse drama and incessant restlessness." The Conservative Mind, written by Russell Kirk in 1953! Some things never change.)

Likewise, the imams want to 1) Tie up the courts with their lawsuit; 2) Use the specter of a charge of racism to dull the senses of the citizenry's watchful eyes; 3) Push the envelope as much as possible, testing our security so much that abnormal activity is considered normal.

As wonderful as our society is, as well as our system of government (while recognizing its flaws), the US Constitution, as someone has said, is not a suicide pact. We must find a way to fight attempts to corrupt our system. Otherwise we're simply acting like Wells' Eloi while the Morlocks devour us and our way of life.

Ten Men at Dinner

Note from KW: This is an old, often-used parable that you may have read before. I recently heard someone refer to it, and thought that with tax day approaching, and the presidential campaigns starting to buzz, it deserved posting.

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same proportion, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Part IX

"[T]he only thing we can say with certainty about climate is that it changes....Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right.

"Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."
-- Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a recent Newsweek article.

Pro-American Muslims

I recently discovered the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), a group whose mission statement reads as follows:

"We proud citizens of the United States of America join together as devoted and patriotic citizens and as devout Muslims in this forum in order to serve as a vehicle for the discussion and public awareness of the complete compatibility of America’s founding principles with the very personal faith of Islam which we practice."

That's what I've been waiting for: a group of Muslims who denounce and renounce the terrorism practiced by the Islamo-fascists (and those who aid them) who are so dominant on the world stage.

Among those who I classify as aiding the terrorists is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Among other things, CAIR is representing the group of six imams who were put off a US Airways flight in Minnesota because of their suspicious actions (see here and here.)

The imams are suing US Airways for discrimination, and in a move full of chutzpah, also suing the passengers who reported them. (Although they deny this, the language is still in their lawsuit.) As I mentioned previously, I think this lawsuit is designed to soften up the American system for future attacks by intimidating watchful citizens who would report suspicious actions.

This is, as are all cases about citizens' rights, a balancing act. The imams -- as well as all Muslims, or any other group -- have the right in America not to be discriminated against by virture of their race, religion, etc. This right, however, pales compared to the right of all of us not to be killed.

This does not mean that Muslims have lost their rights. It's just that, in a post 9/11 world, when Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter) act in a way that can be perceived by a normal, rational person as suspicious, they're lowering the level of their rights. They can't afford to be as arrogant and presumptuous as they might normally be in asserting those rights. And from all indications, the imams were acting very suspiciously, if not provocatively.

In recent weeks I've been working my way through Russell Kirk's book The Conservative Mind. In a section about Anglo-Irish political theorist Edmund Burke, Kirk notes that all rights come with correspending duties. If the imams want to enjoy their rights as American citizens, then they need to remember that they also have duties to their fellow citizens; those rights do not exist in a vacuum.

Privatized Fire Department

This video made the rounds at our office last week. As each person read it, a burst of horrified laughter erupted into the quiet office atmosphere. Those of us who had already seen it nodded in recognition.

En Passant: The Direct Way is Best

Wisdom nobody ever told you:

"You can't finesse a sneeze."

En Passant: True Wealth

I've decided that when it comes to a definition of "true wealth" -- worldly wealth, not spiritual wealth -- I have two definitons:

1) True wealth is having the most choices.

2) True wealth is when you can make decisions without having to take finances into consideration.

YMMV

The Bracket (conclusion)

After two weeks of my being in first place, my bracket died a quick death a few days ago. Who knew that North Carolina was going to fold, scoring only one measly basket the last twenty minutes of basketball that they played?

I still had a chance, but Ohio State had to lose. Needless to say, guess who won and is in the championship game?

The worst part is that I didn't really care about it when I entered, paying my $5 as a lark to be "one of the guys." After being in the lead after the first weekend of play, though, I got greedy and wanted it all.

Now I just want it all to be over. I'm going back to reading books.

Finally, a Role Model for Our Kids

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.

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.]

Midwest
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
Florida

West
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
Kansas

East
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

South
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

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 received...by 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."

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.

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":

"...you 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

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)?

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.