Stonehenge - Built by One Man

This is just too cool to believe. Some people are really, really smart.

AIDS Pandemic Claims "Misdirected," Says WHO Expert

I've posted before about the overblown claims "scientists" made about the so-called AIDS epidemic. Now the story comes out that the risk of an AIDS pandemic among heterosexuals was wildly exaggerated. Essentially, unless you live in sub-Saharan Africa, or engage in homosexual sex, or use intravenous drugs, or work in the sex industry, the chance of contracting AIDS is about zero.

Let me reiterate this point -- for twenty years or more we have been blasted with the message that "all of us are at risk" when it came to AIDS. Massive campaigns were mounted to scare us into changing our behavior or face possible extermination. "Experts" were paraded through the media endlessly, repeating the same thing over and over: AIDS was killing huge numbers of people, and it was only going to get worse. One might say that there was a consensus of opinion about the dangers that AIDS posed to the world.

And now, after billions of dollars have been put into the pockets of AIDS activists and researchers, they shrug their shoulders, say "We were wrong, sorry," and walk away. The similarity to the global warming scare is remarkable. Opportunists cash in on the fear of the unknown -- I'm talking about Al Gore, of course, but also any scientist who receives a paycheck for global warming "research" (read "confirmation"). Any scientist who finds evidence contradicting the manmade global warming liturgy is in danger of killing the golden goose and must be destroyed.

In five, ten or twenty years, global warming scientists will do what they have done with the AIDS scare -- say they were wrong and walk away without a backward glance. Meanwhile, millions will have starved from food shortages, economies will teeter and collapse, and billions of people will have their lifestyles turned back a hundred years -- because of "misdirected" alarmism.

Ooooohhh Yeaahhhhhh

Any doubts about which country is #1?

$45,000,000,000,000

Senate Democrats dropped legislation for a global warming bill that they had introduced. Apparently, the idea of introducing new government programs that would increase the cost of energy lost its appeal when gas hit $4 a gallon.

Little by little, maybe our side is winning. The Democrats may be waiting for whoever the next President is so they can be more confident it won't be vetoed.

Apparently "the most imporant issue facing the planet" (as bill sponsors like to call the global warming theory) can wait until Democrats can profit politically.

By the way, the estimated cost to meet all the global greenhouse emission standards is $45 trillion.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part XII

Because sometimes I get a little.....overwrought...about politics, this quote struck a chord.

Commentator Ben Stein, on CBS News Sunday Morning:

“In a free society, what we are and who we are depends on us -- except for the very most poor among us, where the government can indeed make a difference. But for the huge bulk of us Americans, no matter what any Republican or any Democrat promises, it’s up to the people in our house, not the White House. For most of us, what the politicians say is just sideshow barking, and when the circus leaves town we’ve got to get back to basics: work, save, and teach your children well, and enjoy the political sideshow. But it’s just show business, not real business.”

Bad News for Democrats

Washington Post editorial:

"The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war."

Burning Food

Jerry Bowyer recently wrote a very interesting column called "How Al Gore is Getting Fat Off of a Starving World." Contrary to what the title might indicate, it's not about Gore's latest prodigious weight gain. It's about how people such as Gore are profiting off the high price of foods.

The article goes into a lot of detail, but essentially it's this -- the recent increase in food prices is due to the government's policy to increase ethanol production ("...as an alternative to fossil fuels, which add carbon to the atmosphere, which causes global warming, which we're all gonna die from, yadda yadda yadda....") Agricultural product prices have risen sharply recently -- feed grain is up 41% in the last year -- and the government has blamed it on, variously, the problems with the weak dollar, higher fuel prices, general inflation....something.

During that same time period, though, fruit and nut prices are down 3%. And all the "reasons" the government gives for the high food prices also apply to these products, yet prices went down.

Coincidentally, different types of agricultural products rose in price as they got closer to the ethanol production process. We turn corn into ethanol, but we don't do the same with walnuts and bananas.

From the column: "It’s not a general inflation problem; it’s a problem of political corruption. America’s first presidential primary happens to be in Iowa. That gives ethanol first dibs at the pork barrel. Add Republican farm voters to Democratic environmentalists, shake vigorously and you get a brew called ethanol. The farmers get rich on taxpayer subsidies, the venture capitalists who focus on alternative fuels (I’m looking in your direction, Mr. Gore) get fat on profits. Good deal for everybody, except people who happen to eat food. "

It Ain't About How Hard You Hit

I'm researching a lot of motivational material lately. Maybe because of nostalgia, one of my favorite movie characters of all time is Rocky Balboa.

In the movie of the same name, there's a brief motivational speech by Rocky to his son. It could have come straight out of Toastmasters. Would this guy have won the international speech contest?

Maybe not, but it sure moves me.

Ira Glass on Storytelling

I found these videos mentioned on mental_floss. They made such a strong impression on me that I wanted to include them here.

There are four videos -- #3 is my favorite. Glass makes a great point about our abilities not keeping up with our tastes.

The Slippery Green Slope

The government's prosecutorial powers are vast and, more importantly, flexible. Many crimes or regulatory violations can be prosecuted because they involve "interstate commerce" in some way.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to manage commerce between the states, with foreign nations, and Indian tribes. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has upheld decisions based on this clause for violations that otherwise had no bearing on "interstate commerce." Note: Some of the decisions were the right thing to do, but not based on an expansive definition of "commerce."

One landmark case involved an Atlanta hotel that refused to rent rooms to blacks. The court ruled that this practice interfered with interstate commerce and that the owners could be prosecuted under federal law. Another decision involved a California law that prosecuted anyone who brought an out-of-state "indigent" into the state. The state law was overturned by the SCOTUS because it affected "interstate commerce."

Although the SCOTUS in recent years has shown a tendency to interpret the law so as to actually involve commerce that is interstate, the precedent has already been set. An expansive interpretation of a law or regulation is the prerogative of the government.

Recently there has been a flood of legislation introduced to fight "global warming." (Read 80% of my previous posts if you want to know my opinion on global warming.) Polar bears have been put on the "threatened species" list, not because there's a shortage of polar bears, but because of the threat that global warming supposedly poses to their habitat.

Now there's a story headlined "Obesity Contributes to Global Warming." Given the broad and spreading interpretation of laws shown previously by the courts, it's not unreasonable to anticipate future prosecution of criminal charges against people the government deems overweight, because of their violation of "global warming" laws.

As with the "interstate commerce" clause, global warming laws can be expanded to prosecute any type of offense, based on what someone, somewhere says contributes to global warming. Politicians (including judges) pander to public opinion constantly, and lack the moral courage to resist the latest political fad whether it makes sense or not.

The global warming theorists have inserted themselves like ticks under the skin of politicians. The regulation of exhaust emissions by automobiles is the least of our worries these days. Soon, Americans will have every aspect of their lives controlled because of craven politicians and global warming profiteers.

Obama's Trump Card

The Washington Post recently ran a story about the racism that Obama volunteers are running into while campaigning for the candidate. According to the story, "field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season." They've been called "racially derogatory names" and endured "malicious rants and ugly stereotyping."

There are numerous anecdotes of what you'd expect, including one person telling a campaign worker to "hang that darky from a tree." (Note: I have known a lot of bigots in my time, and I can't think of one who would use such a phrase. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it sounds like something from a poorly-written old movie.)

Then, an incident of racism occurred when a campaign office was vandalized, and comments like "Hamas Votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns and religion" were spraypainted on the walls.

Huh?

As stupid as vandalism is, and as much as the criminals should be punished, could those phrases really be classified as "racist?" I don't believe they are -- but the Washington Post used them as an example of the racist tendencies of many white Americans.

Think about that for a second. A major newspaper has classified spraypainted phrases against the black candidate as racist, even though there was no mention of race in either remark.

Do we see a template of how the campaign for the general election will be covered in the media? Any negative statement against Obama will immediately be designated as "racist," and the content of the point can be discounted without being answered.

The Post story goes on to say that Obama "has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year." Read that as "ignorant, poor white people." You know, the only group that is racist (merely by virtue of being poor, non-college-educated, and white.) The clear implication is that these people are not voting for Obama because he's black.

Meanwhile, Obama's support among black voters is a given. Political pundits blithely predicted Obama's victories in states such as South Carolina, Louisiana and North Carolina because of the large number of black voters in those states. (Obama received 78% of the black vote in SC, 90% in LA, and 91% in NC.)

Yet although much has been made about the blatant racism Obama faces among white voters, there is absolutely no outrage over the racism shown by 1) The huge percentage of black voters who support Obama, presumably because of his race, and 2) The "given" nature of that fact by political pundits, as though it were normal and expected, and 3) The lack of any sort of comment on the hypocrisy shown by all involved.

Apparently racism in favor of Obama is acceptable and the norm, while racism against Obama is to be abhorred and condemned in the strongest possible language.

A person with any sense doesn't use race as a factor in making decisions such as electing a candidate. That includes those who vote for a candidate based on his race. The problem is that not only is there a double standard regarding racism when it comes to Obama, but the definition of racism has been broadened to include almost any remark a person can make about him -- unless it's a glowing endorsement.

To avoid being labeled a racist myself, here are some of the reasons I am against Barack Obama:

• He's a Democrat.
• He's a Liberal.
• He has no clue about the war on terror.
• He wants Americans to pay a tax to the United Nations.
• He is pro-abortion.
• He wants to take away the Bush tax cuts.
• He voted "no" (twice) to reduce the federal deficit.
• He believes global warming is caused by humans.
• He believes government has the right to ban handguns.
• He's a Liberal Democrat.

Okay, you get the idea. Go to ontheissues.org to see more of Obama's positions and votes.

My thought is this: there are so many other reasons to vote against Barack Obama that his race isn't even an issue.

When You're a Geek, You're a Geek

(This one's for Keith.)
Note: adult language (mild) toward the end.

So Feel-Good You'll Cry

Just read the story.

.

Edit (5/6/08): Here's the whole story on video.

Is This Ad Negative?

Some in the media have denounced it as negative, even racist. Judge for yourself.

Take Home Pay's Better

Lots in the news today about the tax rebates from the "economic stimulus." Politicians apparently think giving us our money back, putting it into our hands, will help the economy.

Why couldn't we just keep it in the first place; i.e., lower taxes? Take home pay's a wonderful thing. Wouldn't that help the economy all the time?

Something's inconsistent in their reasoning. Wonder if it has anything to do with it being an election year.

The Carbon Lie

All three Presidential contenders -- McCain, Clinton and Obama -- vow to "do something" about carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, in an effort to prevent global warming.

The government will spend our money to enforce a cap-and-trade system, in which businesses buy and sell carbon credits. The cap-and-trade system will supposedly prevent global warming. The leading cap-and-trade bill, S. 2191 (sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner) will increase federal revenue by $1.2 TRILLION dollars over just the first 10 years according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Al Gore and others purchase carbon offsets -- sometimes from themselves -- to justify not changing their lifestyle, aka "carbon footprint." These carbon offsets supposedly will prevent global warming.

In all these instances, Americans will pay more for food, energy and other necessities, while at the same time having less take-home pay because of higher taxes (those extra taxes, of course, used to fight global warming.)

Here's the big secret:

Higher CO2 levels do not cause higher temperatures. Higher CO2 levels follow higher temperatures.

The best argument is here.

In Al Gore's movie, he carefully avoids saying that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global warming. He describes the relationship as "complex." With this fancy verbal footwork, it's likely that Gore knows the truth. He profits, of course, from the CO2 panic.

Besides nailing every global warming alarmist you talk to -- and oh, how I wish I could have discussed the matter with the IPCC spokesperson that was in Lubbock a few months ago -- you may be wondering what you can do about this craziness.

First, we need to work hard to defeat the stupid Lieberman-Warner bill. Go here to let your Senators know that you do not want another boondoggle of a government program. Second, engage in every debate, every blog, every public forum you can. Popular sentiment must change before this is quashed completely.

Good policy based on good science is acceptable to me. Global warming regulations have neither.

Take Back the Nobel

Al Gore's Oscar-winning propagandumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" continues to fall to pieces under the light of closer inspection. Newsbusters.org reports that ABC News revealed last Friday that one of the most famous scenes in the film was fake.

The scene, purportedly showing Antarctic ice shelves "calving" (breaking apart,) was actually a CGI from the opening of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow."

Add this to the faked "stranded polar bears" photo, and you can see the pattern take shape. Not only does Gore lie, misrepresent and dissemble, he then has the gall to proclaim "The debate is over."

Not hardly.

Herewith a list of anti-global warming propaganda links:

UK High Court: "Gore's Film is Propaganda"

Nine Inaccuracies in Gore's Film Pointed Out in Court

35 Inconvenient Truths: Errors in Gore's Movie

Questions for Al Gore

Global Warming Fraud mega-link

A Feel-Good Monday Morning

Courtesy of those wacky kids at Improv Everywhere (perpetrators of "Best Game Ever,") here's a little number that could have happened at South Plains Mall.

Have a happy Monday.

Best Game Ever

To help cleanse the palate of that last video (shudder), take a look at this one. A group of practical jokers take over a normal, average Little League game and make it big league, complete with fans with body paint, the Jumbotron and the Goodyear Blimp. It's a game that these kids won't ever forget.

Raining McCain

I'm...confused. This throws the presidential election into turmoil.

The Perfect Problem

In America, trends tend to start in California. Both good and bad ideas often originate there, and the rest of the country tries to catch up.

Now Los Angeles Country transit officials, to fight global warming, want to add a new tax onto the fees and taxes that motorists already pay.

From the "Desert Dispatch" opinion piece: "Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions." The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat (surprise!) and author of Assembly Bill 2558.

Again, from the piece: "Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be."

Some points to take away from the story: 1) All the hubbub is over computer models. The supposed disasters have not been confirmed with real-world applications at all. I previously wrote about the failure of computer modeling here and here. Real world examples? Al Gore's photo of the "stranded" polar bears in his movie was deceptive at best, and the Arctic ice cap is pretty much normal.




2) What's the ideal temperature? At what temperature would the global warming alarmists stop their hysteria? It's the perfect Liberal problem: one without a solution.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too Part XI

Thomas Sowell, the smartest man in America, recently wrote a column with observations on various topics, but mostly politics. Some of his gems:

"Most of the problems of this country are not nearly as bad as the "solutions" -- especially the solutions that politicians come up with during election years. "

"What is more scary than any particular candidate or policy is the gullibility of the public and their willingness to be satisfied with talking points, rather than serious arguments."

"It is amazing to me that there are people who still take seriously claims by some candidates that they are against "special interests." All politicians are against their opponents' special interests and in favor of his own special interests. "

"The way to get people's votes is to say that all their problems are caused by other people, and that you will stop those other people from giving them trouble. But if you really want to help, then you can tell them the truth and risk losing their votes."

Global Warming: The Last Decade

A report from BBC News quotes scientists as saying, "The global temperature has not increased since 1998." Then follows the usual harumph, harumph as they explain that the temperature over the last ten years is not as important as the "long-term warming trend." The World Meteorological Organization says that the Earth's temperature has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginnng of the twentieth century.

Meanwhile, there is a disagreement as to which year was the warmest. NASA says it was 2005, while the UK's Hadley Centre says it was 1998.

A question comes to mind. If these two scientific agencies can't even agree on what the temperature was in a particular year within the last decade, how can they measure with any confidence the precise temperature of a year more than a century ago, when measuring instruments were crude and inaccurate? Especially when the declared increase is less than one degree?

Doubts, doubts. It's not unreasonable to have doubts about the claims.

BigDog

If you want to know why America is great, take a look at this new quadruped robot designed and produced by Boston Dynamics. BigDog weighs 230 lbs. and can carry a 340 lb. payload. It has articulated legs, similar to an animal's, that make it able to walk on all kinds of terrain.

Watch the video to see BigDog in action.

In Comparison

During World War II, the Japanese attacked the Aleutian Islands, establishing small numbers of troops on American soil (the Aleutians are part of Alaska.)

One of the major battles the Americans fought was to regain the island of Attu. Read what Wikipedia has to say about the operation.

***

On May 11, 1943, the operation to recapture Attu began. Included with the invasion force was a group of native Alaskan scouts known as Castner's Cutthroats. A shortage of landing craft, unsuitable beaches, and equipment that failed to operate in the appalling weather made it very difficult to bring any force to bear against the Japanese. Many soldiers suffered from frostbite because essential supplies could not be landed, or having been landed, could not be moved to where they were needed because vehicles would not work on the tundra. The Japanese defenders under Colonel Yasuyo Yamasaki did not contest the landings, but rather dug in on high ground away from the shore. This caused bloody fighting: there were 3,929 U.S. casualties: 549 were killed, 1,148 were injured, 1,200 had severe cold injuries, 614 succumbed to disease, and 318 died of miscellaneous causes, largely Japanese booby traps and friendly fire.

On May 29, the last of the Japanese forces suddenly attacked near Massacre Bay in one of the largest banzai charges of the Pacific campaign. The charge, led by Colonel Yamasaki, penetrated U.S. lines far enough to encounter shocked rear-echelon units of the American force. After furious, brutal, close-quarter, and often hand-to-hand combat, the Japanese force was killed almost to the last man: only 28 prisoners were taken, none of them an officer. U.S. burial teams counted 2,351 Japanese dead, but it was presumed that hundreds more had been buried by bombardments over the course of the battle.

***

Use your imagination to picture what the outcry from Democrats today would be over such a battle in Iraq. The casualties above occurred in just over two weeks. This goes to show something the Democrats seem to have missed -- War is messy.

From the Left to the Far Left

Thomas Sowell has written an insightful column about Barack Obama. He points out something that isn't discussed -- that Obama has been consistent in his actions his entire adult life. In college he sought out extreme leftists (Marxist professors, structural feminists, punk rock performance poets, the "more politically active" black students,) and later visited a member of the Weathermen underground terrorist group who endorsed Obama. He sought out Jeremiah Wright's church.

Barack Obama's voting record and actions have been remarkably consistent throughout his career. Although he now tries to project himself as a "unifier," nothing he has ever done in his career substantiates that assertion.

From Sowell:

"There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?"

Three Stooges Candidates

How could I ever pass this up?

Was Obama Talking About Me?

In a recent radio interview, Barack Obama referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person."

Create your own scenario of what would happen if it were another candidate with a different version of that statement.

This boggles my mind. I may have to crack open a six pack of MHL, eat a Moon Pie and watch Full House in HD just to calm myself.

Nothing Here

> The national political battle rages -- nothing much has changed in the last week. Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is wreaking havoc on the Democrats.

> I'm about through with the book. It's taken longer than I anticipated. I overestimated how many pages I could write in a day. I mistakenly translated my sprint speed (I can write 4-5 pages in a single hour) to my marathon speed and thought I could write 20-30+ pages a day. I probably can some day, but the most productive day I've had this week is 14 pages. It's hard to keep that intensity for several hours straight. One bit of good news -- every day this week I've written more than the day before. I hope to get the manuscript in the mail by Monday.

> I plan on visiting the Mexiteria this afternoon to pick up some chiles rellenos. My birthday present to myself.

> If I don't talk to you before then, Happy Easter.

> Time to get back to the book.

[Edit: The book is finished. Now I can rejoin the land of the living.]

The Racial Divide

"OBAMA DECRIES RACIAL RHETORIC" ran a recent headline. In the article, Barack Obama decried "the forces of division" over race that he said are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest. "We have to come together," he said.

"The forces of division have begun to raise their ugly head again," Obama said. "It reminds me: We've got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. A lot of pent-up anger and mistrust and bitterness. This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things."

Yet Barack Obama has for twenty years been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, says things like this:






When the media spotlight shone on Wright's anti-American, racist attitude, Obama "denounced" Wright's remarks as "inflammatory."
.
In 2006, Barack Obama gave $22,500 to the church.
.
Only after getting caught did Obama try to "distance" himself from the remarks of his pastor of seventeen years. Prior to this he had never publicly criticized the remarks as "racist" or "divisive."
.
Does a potential POTUS get away with something like this? Shrugging off the remarks of his spiritual mentor of twenty years as though they were unimportant, and accusing others of the exact same thing for bringing up the subject? How much of a free ride does this guy get?
.
"President" Obama?
.
Not if I can help it.

Happiness is a Warm Light Bulb

A recent column written by H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, highlights something I've been saying for a long time -- much of the research done by "manmade global warming" scientists is sloppy and inaccurate.

The gist of their argument, of course, is that climate-caused catastrophes will occur in the future due to mankind's activities (unless the United States pays exorbitant amounts of money to the United Nations while at the same time turning our society's calendar back 100 years.) This argument is championed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Burnett points out that forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. Even if global warming research scientists had collected accurate data on historical temperatures (which they have not; see my discussion of the discredited "hockey stick" graph) they would still need to use sound methods to predict possible future outcomes.

From Burnett's article: "In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

"A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval."

.

Global warming alarmists want changes on a massive scale made to the US economy and society. Our politicians have taken up the argument, beginning with outlawing incandescent light bulbs. Interference in our daily lives based on a theory supported by flawed science should astound and enrage anyone with a bit of common sense. They have managed to get laws enacted based simply on fear (and a fear of bad publicity for the politicians.)

.

Our side loses if we simply sit idly by and watch it happen.

All Things Warm and Wonderful

A quick catch-up on some of the recent news on global warming.....

In a recent column by Bill Steigerwald, we find a few interesting facts: The Arctic ice cap, represented as melting so much that New York would be under water, and hapless polar bears were drowning, is now at nearly normal levels, and one expert says it's thicker than usual in some spots.

Another researcher, California meteroologist Greg Watts, finds that 70% of NASA's groundweather measuring sites fail to meet the government's own standards because they are not 100 feet from a building, are on blazing rooftops, sit next to air-conditioner exhaust fans, etc. These 1200+ sites are used to measure the "official" average annual temperature of the United States.

This news has been very under-reported in the US Media.


Real Scientific Minds
Global warming scientists who use the scientific method are starting to fight back. More than 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. (The complete list can be seen at www.oism.org/pproject.)

The International Conference on Climate Change is meeting this week in New York City. Its topic is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" and according to the announcement, "More than 400 scientists, economists and experts will meet ... to challenge the claim that global warming is a 'crisis.'"

Common sense on this issue seems to be gaining traction.


Proof that Cable Started Off Right
John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore on this whole business of global warming being a hoax. In an interview on Fox News, Coleman said, "I see absolutely no evidence that CO2, carbon dioxide, is causing any warm-up in temperatures. I don't think it's happening. I'm asking the question: If Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing is invalid -- isn't really happening -- and he goes ahead and sells these carbon credits for millions of dollars, is he committing financial fraud? That is the question."

And he goes even further. Read more about it here.

Our side is winning.

Financial Illiteracy

Listening to radio host Dave Ramsey discuss a recent story in USA Today about how Americans are depending more and more on their credit cards to get by....

Ramsey said that his organization's experience as financial counselors suggests that many people pay their credit card payments and car payments before they pay their mortgage. Could it be that we don't have a "mortgage crisis" but instead have a "credit card crisis?"

I won't go into the math involved, or the collection techniques used by credit card or auto loan companies. Instead, right now I'm thinking about how people get into that kind of mental state in the first place.

Lord knows I've made more than my share of financial mistakes, and will probably make more in the future, so I'm no expert. But shouldn't some of the efforts of the teachers' unions and educational groups go toward teaching our children the basics of personal finance?

I'm not sure what the curriculum would include. Budgeting basics, to be sure. Balancing a checkbook. An explanation of compound interest -- should it take thirty-five years to pay off a credit card? How to comparison shop.

But those are mechanical things, subjects that can be taught like any other in school. I think there needs to be a teaching of a new philosophy, at least new to the current generation -- the principle of delayed gratification. We have been taught since the advent of television that we must have the next thing, the newest trinket, the shiniest object that catches our attention, and we must have it now.

Our grandparents knew about this. The generation that lived through the Great Depression understood what it meant to do without -- our current "poverty level" is the equivalent of what was once considered well-to-do. You saved up to pay cash for a car. You couldn't afford a house until you had a substantial down payment, usually well into middle age. You ate meals at home, and a burger and coke was considered a very special treat.

That mindset created the Greatest Generation. America prospered throughout the 50's and 60's, because of the understanding of adults that nothing is free, you have to work hard for what you get, and sometimes you have to just do without.



We don't have a financial crisis in America. We have an appetite crisis, one in which we want everything we see, and we believe that it's our right to have it all.

Education should start early, fifth or sixth grade at the latest. By the time our children graduate high school, responsible personal finance should be as programmed in their minds as reading and arithmetic.

Of course, if an entire generation of Americans became financially responsible, the Democrat party would wither and die.

Delwin Jones, and Deceiving District 83

Republican Delwin Jones, incumbent District 83 State Representative, has campaigned hard against his challenger Joe Hnatek. Radio ads presenting Hnatek getting his funding from "down state" and as chosen "by the I-35 crowd" are effective. I've written about the District 83 race and Delwin Jones's non-conservative record before.

Now, from radio host Robert Pratt, I get an e-mail with this information:

* 77% of Delwin Jones contributions come from Austin ($35,056 of $45,381), or other "down state" addresses (I've been very generous and included all the way to San Angelo as West Texas.) http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366264.pdf

* 78% of money spent by Delwin Jones came from "down state" ($45,020.28)
Hnatek had only 42% of his funding and spending from Austin, or "down state". Of that 42% of funds used that came from "down state", 100% of it was for in-kind campaign work - none was cash. Other spending was from Hnatek's own pocket. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366238.pdf

* 84% of Empower Texans PAC funding is from West Texas - NOT "down state" or from the I-35 crowd. This is the group, which includes donors from the district, helping Hnatek. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366028.pdf

"So we now see the truth: Delwin Jones is being funding primarily from Austin and Joe Hnatek from right here in West Texas.

By the way, Jack Bush, who is also the mayor of Idalou, and advertising man, and who appears in Jones' latest radio advertisement running down Hnatek and claiming he's pushed by the I-35 crowd, was paid $2250.00 in this filing by Delwin's campaign for "media production" - no kidding!"

My thanks to Robert Pratt for sharing this information. I cast my own vote for Joe Hnatek this afternoon in early voting.

The Agony and The Ecstasy

I probably care less about the NFL draft than any other guy in America. Nonetheless, I read an article from Yahoo's main page on NFL hopefuls who have either hurt or helped themselves during the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis. During the course of my reading, one article led to another, and I finally discovered the "Lowsman Trophy." It's awarded to "Mr. Irrelevant," the last college football player chosen in the NFL draft.

It's a statuette of a player fumbling the ball.

Barack Obama Attacked by Zombie Horde

It turns out that the "fainting" spells were actually people dying and then rising from the dead.

I'll bet you won't hear about this in the mainstream media.

Thought-Struck

Should there even be such a thing as "a career in politics?"

Computer Models Fail to Predict Climate

This article is about -- aw, you know what it's about.

The Real Obama Scandal

Forget all those stupid e-mails you get about Barack Obama being a Muslim, refusing to swear on the Bible, and all that. They're not true.

Here's something that is true, and that you can e-mail to all your friends. Obama wants Americans to pay a global tax to the United Nations.

Obama sponsored a bill in the Senate (S.2433) called the "Global Poverty Act." The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Obama's Senate office sent out a release on the bill: "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid.

Obama's bill would make it US policy to end "global poverty" by committing Americans to an extra tax to be paid to the United Nations, to be distributed (or stolen) at their pleasure.

While many rumors about Barack Obama are untrue, this one is documented. The House version of this bill (H.R.1302) has already passed the House, and at this time is close to being passed in the Senate.

Does the United States need to commit itself to pay a tax to the United Nations? Should Americans be forced to pay yet more in taxes? Should more American money -- nearly a trillion dollars more over the next 13 years -- go to countries that oppose and hate America, simply because they're poor?

Barack Obama thinks so.

They're Coming to Take Me Away

The Mississippi legislature recently introduced a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to serve food to obese people. The bill reads in part:

"An Act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the Department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act."

The bill proposes to revoke licenses of food establishments that violate the provisions of the act.

There are of course many comparisons to the campaign against tobacco users. The first phase explains that it's unhealthy, then it's immoral, and finally it's illegal. (Except in the case of tobacco taxes, which the government can't live without.) Remember how the campaign for seat belt use started out in the late 60's? It was all about safety. Then the message changed to "Parents shouldn't let their kids ride unbuckled." And now we have seatbelt laws.

We've had fifty years of various foods being labeled unhealthy. (The list changes frequently, with yesterday's "miracle food" today's killer, and vice versa.) Now the campaign has started to label obesity as "immoral." Charges of neglect have been levelled against parents for letting their children become obese. In any public discussion of the subject, watch the comments for the sneer and obvious distaste some people have for obese people. Obesity is now considered a character flaw.

Regrding the Mississippi legislation -- if they make it illegal for fat people to eat in restaurants, then fat people will eat at home. The only ones eating in restaurants will be thin people. (Guess what's just happened to the restaurants' business?) So if a legislator goes into a restaurant and sees only thin people, in his mind the legislation worked.

But did the fat people quit eating?

.

Lawmakers, like teachers, have very nebulous ideas of whether their efforts have been successful or not. Unfortunately, they have the power to control all aspects of our lives if we let them. If the Mississippi legislation had been successful -- it was not passed -- it would have spread to other states. And if it was tried once in Mississippi, it will for sure be tried and passed someplace like San Francisco or Berkeley.

.

How long before the fat police start working on supermarkets, and eventually make it illegal for you to have fatty foods in your refrigerator? "Raiding the icebox" takes on a whole new meaning.

Liberals Want You To Forget This

From Mitt Romney's concession speech at the CPAC conference Thursday, Feb 7:

[Israel's President] Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. “First,” he said, “I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.”

The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.

Hell Freezes Over

Regarding a thought from my last post -- "McCain has little support among Conservative Republicans" -- Ann Coulter amplifies it in her trademark way:

The Liberal Endorsement

The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races.

The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?

One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]

With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again.

The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.

A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.

Hitler the Cowboys Fan

Bad Language Warning!!

Wouldn't It Be Funny If....

Newt: A GOP Dark Horse?

"Who...could conservatives end up backing? Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who's doing all the shows talking about his new book? Who is advocating common-sense solutions to the most pressing problems America faces?

"Newt Gingrich, that's who."

First Newt, Now Fred

Breaking news is that Fred Thompson has quit the race.

My endorsement is apparently the kiss of death.

Tommy Lee Jones

A recent article in the UK Guardian analyzes the film career of Tommy Lee Jones, making the point that in recent years he has hit his stride as an actor and in the roles he has played on film (as well as a few that he directed.)

The profile also makes sure that the reader understands that Jones is a mean SOB. If you've ever read interviews with him, or seen him make one of his surly, taciturn personal appearances on television, you'd probably already figured it out.

One phrase in the article -- author unknown, but sounds more like an American wrote it rather than a Brit -- was this: "You know what they say about west Texans past 50 -- How they don't change but just start to smell higher."

First, I'm not sure about exactly what that means, but I don't think it's a compliment. Second, have you ever heard that saying before?

Other than that weird statement, the profile is really good. It even mentions a western that not many people saw, a film directed by Jones: "The Good Old Boys."

In addition to that film, Jones starred in two more of my all-time favorite westerns: "The Missing" and of course, "Lonesome Dove."

State Representative Elections - District 83

Delwin Jones is the State Representative for District 83 in the Texas House of Representatives. He won his 2006 election as a Republican with over 73% of the vote. He's been in office for 28 years. As you can tell from the map above, Jones represents Lubbock county and several surrounding counties. The city of Lubbock itself is District 84, represented by Carl Isett.

The Capitol Inside's Conservative Voting Index determined that Delwin Jones was the fourth least Conservative Republican in the Texas House. This score is "based on an average of scores assessed by the Texas Eagle Forum, the Young Conservatives of Texas and Heritage Alliance, which used to be known as FreePac. Scores assessed by the Texas Association of Business were also factored into the final equation this year."

The Texas Eagle Forum takes pro-family Conservative positions on legislation, and grades each Texas Representative on their stances. Delwin Jones opposed the TEF on House Bills involving a marriage fee increase and required pre-marital counseling; expansion of the CHIPs program; a tax increase due to an across-the-board pay increase of $6000 for teachers, librarians and counselors (worth noting is that Jones is endorsed by the Texas State Teachers Association, Texas Federation of Teachers and Texas Classroom Teachers;) a voter ID bill (Jones voted against requiring voters to provide proof of identity;) requiring voters to prove U.S. citizenship. Jones also voted against restricting the power of eminent domain -- remember the Supreme Court's decision to allow municipalities to take property from one private owner and give it to another private owner?

The Young Conservatives of Texas ranked Delwin Jones and State Senator Robert Duncan among the least Conservative Republicans in the most recent legislative session.

The Heritage Alliance likewise compares legislators' votes with the Conservative position the organization takes. Delwin Jones scored 55%, lower than the 58% scored by Democrat Joe Heflin from District 85.

So it's been established by various Conservative organizations that Delwin Jones is not a staunch Conservative, contrary to the quote by Senator Robert Duncan.

Jones is opposed in the Republican primary by Lubbock physician Joe Hnatek. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal ran a hit piece on Hnatek, who appears to be a weak contender anyway. The A-J article mentions Jones's opposition to school vouchers (or the right of parents to choose a school for their children -- remember the teachers unions' support for Jones) and how a wealthy pro-voucher donor could provide life to Hnatek's campaign.

The King is Dead

Bobby Fischer has died in an Icelandic hospital. He was 64.

I mourn for what could, and should, have been.

Thought-Struck

It strikes me that many so-called Republican "conservative" politicians are simply taking stances less Liberal than the Democrats, and describing that position as "Conservative."

"The Democrats want to spend $200 billion on government welfare? I propose only spending $180 billion.

"See? I'm a Conservative."

One of the principles America was founded on was the concept of self-sufficiency and standing on your own two feet.

" . . . the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world. . . . Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary* power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. . . . "

[Edit: I forgot to cite this quote. It's from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville.]

*tutelary - "having the position of guardian or protector of a person, place, or thing"

A Quick Thought on "Change"

Barack Obama is promising "change." Hillary Clinton talked about her 35 years of "change." Mike Huckabee has talked about "change."

Janet LaRue made a pithy comment in her most recent column:

"Most of us won’t allow a hairstylist to “change” our do without an in-depth explanation. But a lot of us are buying into undefined promises of “change” from presidential contenders."

The Answer to Life's Biggest Question

You have trouble with your debit or credit card at the store. It won't register properly when you swipe it through the machine. The cashier takes your card, wraps a plastic shopping bag tightly around it, and it works.

Why?

The Mental Floss website gives us the answer:

"There are tiny particles embedded in that magnetic strip on the back of your card. When the card is “swiped” through the reader, those particles are translated into binary code and transmits your card number (and other pertinent information) to the computer at the bank or wherever the merchant transmits the data for verification.

"As a card gets older and more worn, slight surface defects might occur in the magnetic strip that could corrupt the data stream. (The machine might read a zero where there isn’t one, and kick back your card as being invalid.)

"Increasing the distance of the card surface from the reader even a few thousandths of an inch often improves the signal-to-noise ratio, causing the electric eye to skip over the “ticks” in the magnetic strip. "

Now I can go back to sleep.