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.

Newt Redux

From the "Evans-Novak Political Report" from February 28:

"Conservative Void: Republicans around the country are now talking about the possibility that a conservative candidate outside the big three could suddenly catch fire and suck support away from both the frontrunners and several of the minor candidates. A push poll for the 2008 Iowa presidential caucuses is instructive on the reality of conservative discontent with the current "big three" GOP candidates. The poll gives Sen. John McCain 20.5 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani 16.3 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 3.5 percent. The candidate for whom the push-poll was conducted, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore (R), leads them all with 31 percent.

This is not legitimate survey, of course -- it's a "push poll" that tells respondents positive and negative things about various candidates. The pollster peppered respondents with tales of the liberal deviations by McCain, Giuliani and Romney, and the true-blue conservatism of Gilmore. But it proves a point that is widely accepted in Republican ranks: None of the "big three" is a natural fit for the nation's right-of-center party. A conservative void unquestionably exists. The question is whether there is anyone who can fill the void.

The name usually mentioned as the void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing Citizens United organization of contributors to its political fund showed Gingrich ahead with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent)."

The report follows up with "But based on his record as speaker of the House, Gingrich's conservative record is far from flawless." -- without giving details of the "flaws" Gingrich demonstrated.

During the debate between Gingrich and Mario Cuomo Wednesday night (Feb 28), Cuomo, in response to a question from the moderator, named Gingrich as the best candidate for the Republican nomination. "Intelligent, experienced, and a great debater."

Other People Say Smart Stuff VII

Mark Alexander has written another in the growing list of articles elucidating the growing realization among informed citizens that manmade global warming, and Al Gore's claim to enviro-nazi sainthood, are about to be revealed for the shams they are.

One excerpt:

For instance, Gore insists that the increased incidence of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought and other weather phenomena is the direct result of global warming.

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray takes exception: "The degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes," he says, "is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms."

In a recent issue of Discover Magazine, Gray, described by Discover's editors as one of "the world's most famous hurricane experts," wrote, "This human-induced global-warming thing ... is grossly exaggerated. ... I'm not disputing there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was global cooling in the middle '40s to the early '70s. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical ... about this global-warming thing. But no one asks us."

...And the Oscar for Best Documentary Goes To: "Liar, Liar"

From the Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Descended from Medieval Demons

Other People Say Smart Stuff VI

Some excerpts from William Rusher's latest column, "The Global Warming Hysterics Strike Again":

"Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid 'scientists' (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings."

"The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

"Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

"The traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," ...is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows."

Global Warming and Uri Geller (continued)

Global warming* alarmists are like those "true believers" who honestly think that psychic star Uri Geller has real powers, despite the fact that a) He has repeatedly failed to prove his powers under strictly controlled conditions, and b) He has been caught cheating. Their desire to believe overrides any common sense.


Global Warming Charlatanism
Misrepresentation of findings. Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory was a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world.


He contributed again to the "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. And he was invited to contribute to the IPCC's "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, Landsea's specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007.


In October, 2004, the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited Landsea's contribution -- was to participate in a press conference. The title of the press conference was "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." None of Landsea's work substantiated this claim. Nobody's had.


Landsea tried to contact Trenberth to clarify the scientific truth: No proven correlation between hurricanes and global warming. To Landsea's dismay, the press conference proceded, with the media drooling over the flashy headline possibilities.


Landsea resigned from the IPCC's report, in protest over the politicization and misrepresentation of scientific findings. You can read his story in his own words in his "Open Letter to the [Scientific] Community." Unfortunately, other scientists, eager for social status and funding, stepped in to support the bogus claims made by politicians.


The Big Question
How valid is the global warming alarmists' argument if they have to misrepresent and lie to achieve their goals?




* "global warming" in these discussions is defined as "man-made catastrophic climate change."

Other People Say Smart Stuff V

Catholic Cardinal Nails It

"What we were seeing from the [global warming] doomsdayers was an induced dose of mild hysteria, semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition....enough is enough" -- Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney

What a "Consensus" of Scientists Can Do

In the 1970's, a consensus of oceanographers and environmental scientists agreed that placing old tires in the ocean would be a good idea. It would provide artificial reefs for marine life and free up space in crowded landfills.

Now the tires are creating an ecological disaster. Sea critters are not building on the tires in significant amounts. The tires are either degrading, with pieces of rubber scattered throughout the oceanscape, or coming loose completely, littering the beaches and ocean floor for thousands of square miles.

The "experts" who advocated the idea now react with a shrug. Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing a project in Florida, said: "I look back now and see it was a bad idea." Meanwhile, government money is being spent to try to repair the ecological disaster.

This vividly illustrates what happens when a so-called "consensus" of experts determines a solution based on a faulty premise. The remedy is worse than the original problem, and the experts walk away, leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess.

***

This should make all the global warming conspiracy fanatics pause and consider what the consequences of their "solutions" might be. As I often tell my children, "Consensus does not mean correctness."

The Experts are Catching On

Former Clinton advisor and current political commentator Dick Morris recently wrote a column entitled "Here Comes Newt." It eerily echoes my column "The Class of '08" from August 28, 2006, in which I predicted Newt Gingrich would be the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Why ain't my phone ringing off the wall with offers to be the one making $$$ advising politicians? (Attention Republicans: I am for sale.)

Other People Say Smart Stuff IV

Dr. Thomas Sowell is the smartest man in America. Among other accomplishments, he holds a Ph.D in economics and is currently a Senior Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

He has written a series of articles entitled "Global Hot Air." In these articles he has so far pointed out that

• The list of so-called "consensus of scientists" includes everything from "nuclear physicists to people who study insects, volcanoes, and endocrine glands -- none of whom is an expert on weather or climate, but all of whom can be listed as scientists, to impress people who don't scrutinize the list any further."
• Many distinguished climatologists who have real credentials oppose the concept of "manmade global warming."
• "There has been a full court press to convince the public that 'everybody knows' that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living."
• The media present sensational and inaccurate headlines and stories to promote the idea of "manmade global warming."
• The big hurricane season in 2005 was touted in the media as caused by, and proof of, global warming. Predictions were that 2006 would be even worse. The fact that there was practically no hurricane season in 2006 went unmentioned.

Read Sowell's columns. He's smart and articulate.

Global Warming and Uri Geller

Uri Geller is a psychic who became famous in the 1970's due to television appearances where he seemed able to read other people's thoughts, start stopped watches and -- most famously -- bend spoons using the power of his mind. He has always insisted that his powers are real, not simply tricks.


Various skeptics have debunked Geller's tricks, and he has consistently failed when placed under strictly controlled conditions. He has even been caught cheating on video. Despite all this, Geller continues to insist on his legitimacy.


Uri Geller may indeed have genuine psychic powers. However, the fact that he has cheated, and that he failed under strictly controlled conditions, make you doubt that conclusion.


Similarly, global warming* may turn out to be the catastrophe that alarmists insist it is. So far, though, much of the research that supposedly supports that conclusion has been either a) faulty; b) misrepresented; or c) manipulated. Like believing in Uri Geller's powers, believing the truthfulness and accuracy of the reports of global warming is hard when you know they cheated.


The Reasons
The first question that comes to mind about something this important is Why? Why would supposedly ethical scientists and politicians try to deceive the populace?


Money. Since 1993 more than $80 billion has been spent on global warming research. Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting part of the $6.5 billion in research grants that foundations, corporations, and US government programs have budgeted for global warming in 2007. Politicians cement relationships with activists who support reelection campaigns and can rename $14 billion in "alternative energy" pork into ethical "planetary protection." It gives new meaning to the label of being "green."


Status. Besides the social acceptance by their green colleagues, scientists who tout global warming doom ("Climate change to flood New York City") increase their likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories. Politicians get better press and can assume a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who is not as green.


The Research
Flawed science. Henk Tennekes was the director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. A skeptic of the global warming research, he argued that there were inherent limits on climate models scientists were basing their conclusions on, that the world was far too complex to be replicated. The best legitimate predictability models can now only reach up to 36 hours. The predictions for the "next 100 years" are based on cumulative day-by-day projections -- which are impossible.


Flawed statistics. The so-called "hockey stick" graph, established by Michael Mann, supposedly shows that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. A congressional energy and commerce committee asked Dr. Edward Wegman to head a team to assess the validity of the research that resulted in this graph. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association.


Dr. Wegman's conclusion? "Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable." When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.


TO BE CONTINUED


* "global warming" in these discussions is defined as "man-made catastrophic climate change."

Liberals Will Choke to Death on This

I heard Rush talking about this on his radio show, and thought it was one of his jokes. To my pleasant surprise, it's a real story. This shows how easily something like the Nobel Prize can be manipulated. So Al Gore's nomination is nothing special. Pay special attention to Levin's comments about Rush. Liberals and those who don't listen to Rush regularly will be outraged at such statements. To long-time fans, though, they're just plain truth.

"Nationally syndicated conservative radio talk host Rush Limbaugh has been nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize by Landmark Legal Foundation-the leading conservative public interest law firm in the country.

According to Landmark President Mark R. Levin, the firm decided to nominate Limbaugh, who also serves as a member of Landmark's Board of Advisors, for his "nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world."

In his letter to the Nobel Committee, Levin writes, "Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today. Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law - and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."

Why Hillary Won't Win

Unless something catastrophic happens to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she will be the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee. Currently the media are singing Barack Obama's song, and John Edwards (and possibly Al Gore) wait in the wings. But it's Hillary's game to lose.

Although she is certain to be the Democrat candidate, there are many reasons I believe she will be unable to win the Presidency.

Reason #1: "She's a girl." Yes, I realize that Hillary Clinton is not a child. Nonetheless, chauvinistic or not, many people will vote against Hillary because of her gender. Some of her supporters will vote for her for that reason alone, of course, but many more voters will decide to vote for Hillary's opponent based solely on her being a woman.

Reason #2: Her personality. Ms. Clinton will spend the next 21 months trying to soften her image. Since 1992, however, she has been depicted as a cold, calculating, hard-nosed, unlikable beeyotch. The rhetoric she will have to use to win the Democrat primaries will only accentuate this image, despite her attempts to change it.

Reason #3: Her husband. Bill Clinton polarizes Americans. Many people dislike him, and even among his admirers there are some who don't believe a family should return to the White House. "Time for some new blood" and "not again" will be the sentiments of many voters during the campaign.

Reason #4: The primaries. What Hillary Clinton did not need was a strong opponent in the Democrat primaries. Although she is certain to win the nomination, Barack Obama is currently the media darling, giving the other challengers the courage to challenge Hillary. This will entail a lot of mudslinging and the political version of a UFC fight. She's going to lose some teeth. The infighting will accentuate her negatives for the voters. Her only chance to come out clean and in good shape is if Obama's campaign disintegrates before the primaries, and the other Democrats roll over.

Reason #5: Her politics. Despite the 2006 elections (which was a reprimand vote against the Republicans' wandering from Conservative principles,) most Americans are conservative, and voters will put conservative politicians into office. Despite what she says during the presidential campaign (which will sound much more centrist and conservative than what she says during the primary campaign,) Hillary's record shows her to be very Liberal.

All of the above factors are rendered moot if Republicans field a weak candidate (ala Bob Dole, '96.) That's why it's vital that Republicans work hard to find someone who is intelligent, appealing, and Conservative.

Other People Say Smart Stuff III

I recently read the most enjoyable column on the modern Liberal Left: "All the Old Dudes," written by Jack Langer. His first line tells the tale: "A man could make a fortune selling Geritol to these people." Read the rest of it, though, because it's fresh, fun, and informative.

Why They Won't Tolerate Discussion

To get "loads of media coverage...we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

-- Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University and leading proponent of the "manmade global warming" theory, in Discover magazine, October 1989.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too 2

A great analysis of the effects of a minimum wage hike was written in 1996 by the "Joint Economic Committee."

Particularly enlightening was the debunking of the myth of the "minimum wage worker trying to support a family."

Turns out that only 2.8 percent of workers earning less than minimum wage are single parents. Only 1.2 percent of all minimum wage workers were adult heads of households with incomes less than $10,000. Fifty-seven percent of minimum wage workers are single individuals, many of them living with their parents.

Check it out.

Liberals and OPM, Part 2

Recently the Congress passed legislation regarding a higher minimum wage. I’ve addressed some of the arguments about this before ("A Zero-Sum Wage" July 28, 2006; "First Post of 2007" January 5, 2007.) This legislative session, however, had a few quirks.

Tunagate
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 8th district, which includes San Francisco. She has pushed hard for the 40% increase in the minimum wage. This federal minimum wage is supposed to affect all U.S. states, territories and possessions.

Segue to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, the non-voting Democrat representative from Samoa. He requested an exemption for Samoa. It seems that 80% of the employment in Samoa is with two tuna processing plants, one of which belongs to StarKist tuna. The increase in the minimum wage, he said, would be devastating to his country’s economy.

The minimum wage legislation as initially proposed and promoted by Nancy Pelosi included this exemption. No other states, territories or possessions were exempt. Only Samoa.

As it turns out, StarKist tuna is owned by the Del Monte company. And the Del Monte’s company headquarters are in....San Francisco.

There was enough of an uproar by Republicans over this barefaced double standard that Pelosi was forced to back down, and Samoa is now covered by the minimum wage law. Pelosi, however, has been exposed as the fraud she is. She ignored her own arguments about "human suffering" in her zeal to protect the profits of the corporation in her district.

Also, by attempting this piece of underhanded chicanery, she acknowledged that raising the minimum wage is harmful to the economy. If it was bad for Samoa, won’t it be bad for America?

Democrats are eager to take credit for projects and programs that other people pay for. But when there’s a risk that they will have to pick up the tab, they quickly look for a way to change the rules. To Democrats, there’s no such thing as "take home pay" - it all belongs to them. They love OPM.

***
An addendum to highlight how the Democrats work: Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina asked a question of Democrat Barney Frank, who was in the House chair (to temporarily lead the House.) The topic was stem-cell research. McHenry began to ask about the possibility of exempting Samoa from the stem cell bill, but before he could complete his question, Frank interrupted him, and would not allow him to speak. The exchange went on for nearly five minutes, but Frank refused to allow McHenry to speak. (In all fairness, the question was one of parliamentary procedure, but Frank's refusal to let him speak was despotic.)

That's how the party in control of Congress should act. Republicans, pay attention.

Liberals and OPM, Part 1

Recently in another blog, the self-professed Liberal writer has made a large deal out of bonuses and salaries paid to businessmen (and Howard Stern.) He highlighted the sinfulness of their income by juxtaposing it with a photo of a homeless person and a cloying paragraph about how our "country is broken," and that "there are almost a million people homeless because we don't care."

The writer of this message is a lawyer who loves to highlight his toys and his trips to attend college and pro football games out of town. This Liberal lawyer lives a lifestyle that most of us would love to be able to afford. Yet he complains about others making too much money.

By all accounts, this Liberal lawyer is a nice enough guy personally. What I find offensive, though, is that he loves to point out any instance of perceived hypocrisy by church or religious leaders, while at the same time not seeing anything wrong in his own stance. This is typical of the Liberal "somebody should do something" crowd -- always eager to take control of OPM (Other People's Money.)

The Church, The State and Common Sense

Sometimes you have to go back a few years to get the right perspective on what's happening in America today.

" The First Amendment does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.

"That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

"Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.

"Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, expressing the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

The modern court's hostility to Christianity is a very recent (and un-Constitutional) invention.

The Best Nutrition Website on the Internet

With the onset of the new year and its attendant resolutions, many people are going on diets. Low-calorie, low-fat, low-carb -- almost all dieters (and many folks who aren't on a diet) are reading those ubiquitous nutrition labels on packaged foods.

Nutritiondata.com does a much, much more thorough job. The site analyzes a bazillion different foods, including fast foods, for not only nutrition, but also how a food fits into a particular kind of diet.

An unusual feature is the "fullness factor" that measures satiety against nutrition. (Along with cool full color graphs.)

For people who are interested in what they're eating, this site can't be beat.

Bon appétit.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too

"To suggest that combatants who fight without a flag or a uniform; who wipe their feet on the Geneva Convention; who disguise themselves as women; who hide in mosques and marketplaces; who slice off the heads of their prisoners; and who use children as shields; are entitled to the same safeguards as soldiers is sheer lunacy."
-- Burt Prelutsky

First Post of 2007

...So I'm working on a scene-by-scene revision of the novel, and I suddenly realize that I haven't posted on my own blog for several weeks, although I've contributed to another blog quite energetically (check the "comments" sections of anything remotely political.)

Conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on the idea that governments, institutions and leaders are competent enough to successfully engineer a conspiracy. I'm starting to believe that any kind of competence by those parties is doubtful, if not impossible.

Case in point: Saddam Hussein's execution. Justice is finally meted out and, with the exception of the usual anti-capital punishment crowd, mostly popular. Then the cell phone video turns up, showing the sectarian chants and gauche taunting of Saddam before he was executed. Suddenly, what should have been a satisfactory ending to the story becomes propaganda for our enemies. Once again.

Wouldn't an occasion that solemn and important call for searches before anyone was allowed inside? Or the ubiquitous announcement "Please turn off any pagers, cell phones, recorders..."? Apparently not.

***
As of this writing, the Democrats appear poised to force through a higher minimum wage, which I have addressed before. ("A Zero-Sum Wage," July 28, 2006.) The proposed minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, an increase of $2.10. This means that those companies that employee workers at minimum wage (or above; workers who were already paid $7.25 will insist on the same increase as those who were only earning the minimum) will experience a government-mandated forty percent increase in labor costs.

Let's say a businessman runs a small, family-owned restaurant, where he employees ten people at minimum wage. If all those employees work 40 hours a week, his increased weekly labor cost is $840.


Congratulations, you've just taxed the small business owner an extra $43,680 per year.

There will be a lot of meetings that culminate in "I'm sorry, but I have to let you go. I can't afford you." The workers who are fortunate enough to keep their jobs will pay more for meals at the restaurant, due to higher prices to offset the increased labor cost. Additionally, they'll pay more for all other goods and services that depend on minimum-wage workers. Not to mention the $334 more they'll pay each year in Social Security and Medicare taxes.

But the politicians can feel good about themselves, and read all the complimentary stories in the newspapers. Isn't that really what's important?

***
The world's crazy. I can only hope to carve out my own little pocket of sanity...then fortify it.

Imam Update

(See my December 5 post under "Latro Ergo Sum #2: 'The Six Imams'" for the story on these guys.)

According to a report by UPI, five of the six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight now want money from the airline for the "ordeal."

The imams are represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR claims the men were handcuffed for several hours, but one of the imams told the Times he was only handcuffed for "10 or 15 minutes" and that the imams were not led off the plane in handcuffs.

So much for CAIR's credibility.

Keep an eye on this one.

Two Views of Global Warming: The Pogrom and the Skeptic's Guide

The Pogrom
"pogrom - n. An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group"

A letter, dated October 27, 2006, was sent to ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson. The letter came from John D. Rockefeller IV and Olympia Snowe, both U.S. senators.

If an individual had written and sent such a letter, he would be indicted for extortion and blackmail.

The letter condemns ExxonMobil’s support of scientific researchers and organizations that dispute global warming. The senators actually introduce a word into the argument - climate change "deniers" and "denial strategy." These terms are applied to anyone who disputes any of the following: a) Global warming is happening; b) Global warming will result in catastrophe; c) Global warming is due to mankind’s activities; d) Global warming is a fact, not a theory.

(The use of the term denier is important. It tries to evoke a comparison to the term "Holocaust denier," one of those people who refuse to acknowledge that the extermination of six million Jews ever happened. Obviously there's no comparison between debatable science and photos of corpses. However, setting the terminology is an important part of a propaganda war. Look for the word "denier" to become more prevalent.)

In this letter, the senators insist that ExxonMobil 1) Immediately stop funding anyone who disputes or questions global warming findings and admit that "global warming" is a fact; 2) "Come clean" to the public about its support for these people; 3) Repudiate all the information that has been discovered by these people; 4) Start giving money to the pro-global warming groups.

The senators even go so far as to compare ExxonMobil to the tobacco industry. This is a not-so-subtle reminder to Tillerson of what the government can do to a company or an industry if it so chooses.

Translated from bureaucrat-ese, the letter boils down to this: "Say what we want you to say, and give us your money, or we will destroy you." This letter and maneuver is so outrageous that even some of the Washington inside-the-Beltway crowd is tsk-ing over the sheer gall these senators displayed.

The most frightening aspect of this is that the pro-global warming people don’t even want the debate, and will use the politicians that they have in their pocket to quash our First Amendment rights. They want to completely eradicate those who oppose them.

The Skeptic's Guide

The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works just released a 64-page booklet entitled "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming." The book is available online for download.

In this booklet, almost all of the major claims of the pro-global warming people are proven to be in dispute or as completely wrong. Some of the claims disputed are the "hockey stick" theory; the statement that "90’s was the hottest decade on record;" that the polar ice caps are melting, and much more. The booklet gives links to all supporting documentation.

The main thrust of the booklet is how the media have chosen the pro-global warming side of the argument, and provide a completely one-sided picture in their coverage. (What a surprise.)

The hero of this little booklet is Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. The full text of a speech he gave to the Senate is presented.

Senator Inhofe said it best: "The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice president Al Gore represents the scientific "consensus" that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve."