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."