The Media Begins Its Turn on Al Gore

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

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

Read more here.

Challenge to "Consensus" on Global Warming

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

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

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

The rest of the article is here.

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

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

Call Him Mjolnir*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DELAY: You exhibited it, Matt!

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

DELAY: All Republicans.

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

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

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

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

LAUER: Because we're talking --

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

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

DELAY: Thank you.

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

About Universal Healthcare

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

From the London Evening Standard:

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

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

"...heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could
be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they
cleaned up their act."

As nice as something like "free" healthcare sounds, think about other government-provided medical services that already exist. When was the last time someone bragged about the great service at the VA Hospitals (see Walter Reed) or how wonderful Medicare is?

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

That's what "Universal Healthcare" means.

Democrats and Benchmarks for Iraq

A Video You Don't See That Often

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

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

Remember, this Palestinian celebration was before we invaded Iraq.

Another Strike Against Bad Scientific Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Difference Between Larry Craig and Bill Clinton

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

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

The Impartial Liberal Media

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

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

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

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

Surprising Number

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

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

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

That's a lot of empty land.

The Affluent Poor

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

Here is a snapshot of America's poor:

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


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


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


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


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


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


• 89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

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

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

Global Warming Claims DEBUNKED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laughing at Libs

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

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

[The Swiss] Got Rhythm

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

The More Things Change

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

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

Newt: The Phony War

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

Newt: FedEx vs Government Bureaucracy

The Man in action.

Random Werewolf Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

A Riot is an Ugly Thing

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

The Pork Merchants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gore the Mountebank*

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


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

Read the entire Chicago Sun-Times article here.

***

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

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

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

Some highlights from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

At Least Somebody in the Family's Got Talent

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

Proving that luck beats skill every time.

Good job, bro.

Newt on Border Security

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

Too Cool: Bruce Lee

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

The Enemy Within

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

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

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

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

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

My Apologies...

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

You Want Drama?

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

Think "Blackhawk Down" in the animal world.

(Yes, stolen from Barry, MW.)

Cool News About Global Warming

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

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

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

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

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

The List

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

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

The Worst Drivers

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

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

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

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

Sometimes I Say Smart Stuff, Too

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

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

Not bad for a hick from the sticks, huh?

Would You Believe Five Days?

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

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

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

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

***

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

Soldiers Coming Home

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

Off to See the Wizard

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

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

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

Jimmy Carter steps forward timidly.

"I've come for some courage."


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

***

Richard Nixon steps forward.

"Well, I think I need a heart."

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

***

Up steps Bush.

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



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

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


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

"IS DOROTHY HERE? "

Calhoun on Liberty, Taxes and Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

From Sublime to Foolish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten Men at Dinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Part IX

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

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

Pro-American Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privatized Fire Department

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

En Passant: The Direct Way is Best

Wisdom nobody ever told you:

"You can't finesse a sneeze."

En Passant: True Wealth

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

1) True wealth is having the most choices.

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

YMMV

The Bracket (conclusion)

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

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

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

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

Finally, a Role Model for Our Kids