Sunday, December 30, 2007

Stupid Bumperstickers

This one on the guitar case of a young woman whose lesson was right after mine:

"The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."
- Che Guevara

Well, my little self-aggrandizing anti-western budding communist, he also said:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
- Che Guevara

Huh. Two-faced, too. My next bumpersticker might just be:

"A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
- Che Guevara

This one wouldn't be bad either:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
- Che Guevara

Friday, December 14, 2007

Still for Fred

Fred has been the most promising guy to me, not necessarily to win, but to support most of the issues I support and use some of what we used to call "common sense" in running things and negotiating with our enemies. Within and without.

But I'd kinda written him off early. But after yesterday, I'm gonna say "Not So Fast".

Show of hands -- who thinks Giuliani or Huckabee will win the nomination?

Republicans "Like This War" - Pelosi

So I get this thing from Bob Parks where he tips me off to Nancy Pelosi's latest assault on reason, truth, and history:
"They like this war. They want this war to continue." ... "We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq." ... "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
And it doesn't take long googling for news outlets that that indeed is what she said. That Republicans like the war and want it to continue.

I do not for one minute believe that George W. Bush or any other Republican "likes" this war or wants it to continue. They do want to finish it. But finishing it and ending it are not the same thing.

But then in today's continuing pattern of getting your PR soundbytes out (Clinton Campaign: The Republicans are going to rake our poor friend Obama over the coals for his former drug use. Ooops, did we say that? Well we aren't saying it, but they will. - snicker- ) she later "takes it back":

Well, when I said like, I used a poor choice of words. The fact is: They support this war. They support the president's execution of it, even though any objective observer of it would say that a war that we've been in much longer -- more than a year longer -- than we were in World War II, going in on a false pretense without a strategy for success, without a reason to stay, against the wishes of the American people does not deserve the support of the Congress of the United States.
It's a war America is in, Nancy, and one you voted for. Adults, once they start something even if they find out later some of their premises were wrong -- finish what they start. You got your PR soundbyte in, then you try to have it both ways by "apologizing" -- just like Shaheen & Huckabee.

What was the strategy for success in WWII, anyway? Whatever it was, if there was one, it sure wasn't to minimize every success we had and amplify any setback or any wrongdoing by a handful of our troops. Which has been the political strategy of the Democrats ever since we crossed the Kuwaiti border. Which I believe has a lot to do with why this war has gone on for longer than WWII.

Pelosi, et al have given aid and comfort to the enemy practically since the war began. You know what we used to call that? You know what the peanalty used to be?

And what's all this stuff about no change in strategy? Remember the Surge that the Democrats were so against and were so sure it wouldn't work that they declared it failed before it even started? (Probably because they were afraid it might succeed?) After the big "change in direction" (which, incidentally is not synonymous with "withdrawal", Nancy) was allegedly asked for, America got one in just a few months. And a few months after the change took place, things in Iraq started getting much much better. Which is why you're playing a misdirection by screeching the same tired charges over and over and over and over and over trying to nurture the anti-war "Availability Cascade".

Without a reason to stay? Without a reason to stay? We stormed somebody's house to take out an abusive parent and left it pretty messed up. In the mean time, some of our worst enemies came in to make it as bad as they possibly could for us. If we leave before we should, we do a great disservice to the Iraqi people. If we leave before we should, we hand a PR victory to Al Queda. Don't give me this "no reason to stay" schtick.

I see through you. You're trying to convince us what you say is true by repeating it and having the press repeat it for you.

We did not go to war against the wishes of the American people, and while naturally the American people wish we could leave and have our troops home ASAP, we know that it isn't a good idea.

Apparently you think it is. Or maybe you're just afraid of Code Pink.

Monday, December 10, 2007

The A List

Passed along from my good buddy Morgan, via Buck.

I thought I was doing pretty well until I read Buck's.

01. Bought everyone in the bar a drink
02. Swam with wild dolphins
03. Climbed a mountain
04. Taken a Ferrari for a test drive
05. Been inside the Great Pyramid
06. Held a tarantula
07. Taken a candlelit bath with someone
08. Said “I love you” and meant it
09. Hugged a tree

10. Bungee jumped (don't plan on it, either)
11. Visited Paris

Expand to see the rest

12. Watched a lightning storm.
13. Stayed up all night long and saw the sun rise

14. Seen the Northern Lights (I'd love to!)
15. Gone to a huge sports game
16. Walked the stairs to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa
17. Grown and eaten your own vegetables
18. Touched an iceberg (be cool to see one first hand. Not in the same way the Titanic did, but...)
19. Slept under the stars
20. Changed a baby’s diaper
21. Taken a trip in a hot air balloon
22. Watched a meteor shower
23. Gotten drunk on champagne

24. Given more than you can afford to charity
25. Looked up at the night sky through a telescope
26. Had an uncontrollable giggling fit at the worst possible moment
27. Had a food fight
28. Bet on a winning horse
29. Asked out a stranger
30. Had a snowball fight
31. Screamed as loudly as you possibly can

32. Held a lamb
33. Seen a total eclipse
34. Ridden a roller coaster
35. Hit a home run

36. Danced like a fool and didn’t care who was looking (if it still counts when you're drunk)
37. Adopted an accent for an entire day (well... kind of ... for a lot of the day)
38. Actually felt happy about your life, even for just a moment
39. Had two hard drives for your computer
40. Visited all 50 states
41. Taken care of someone who was drunk
42. Had amazing friends
43. Danced with a stranger in a foreign country ( I have, however danced with the two guitarists from an all-girl punk-rock band. Once again, there was alcohol inovled. But that's another story.)
44. Watched whales
45. Stolen a sign
46. Backpacked in Europe
47. Taken a road-trip
48. Gone rock climbing
49. Midnight walk on the beach
50. Gone sky diving
51. Visited Ireland
52. Been heartbroken longer than you were actually in love
53. In a restaurant, sat at a stranger’s table and had a meal with them
54. Visited Japan
55. Milked a cow
56. Alphabetized your CDs
57. Pretended to be a superhero

58. Sung karaoke
59. Lounged around in bed all day
60. Played touch football
61. Gone scuba diving
62. Kissed in the rain
63. Played in the mud (not a big fan of getting muddy)
64. Played in the rain
65. Gone to a drive-in theater

66. Visited the Great Wall of China
67. Started a business
68. Fallen in love and not had your heart broken
69. Toured ancient sites
70. Taken a martial arts class
71. Played D&D for more than 6 hours straight
72. Gotten married
73. Been in a movie
74. Crashed a party
75. Gotten divorced
76. Gone without food for 5 days
77. Made cookies from scratch
78. Won first prize in a costume contest
79. Ridden a gondola in Venice
80. Gotten a tattoo
81. Rafted the Snake River
82. Been on television news programs as an “expert”
83. Gotten flowers for no reason
84. Performed on stage
85. Been to Las Vegas (through it but not to it)
86. Recorded music (not professionally)
87. Eaten shark
88. Kissed on the first date

89. Gone to Thailand
90. Bought a house
91. Been in a combat zone
92. Buried one/both of your parents
93. Been on a cruise ship
94. Spoken more than one language fluently
95. Performed in Rocky Horror
96. Raised children
97. Followed your favorite band/singer on tour
98. Passed out cold
99. Taken an exotic bicycle tour in a foreign country
100. Picked up and moved to another city to just start over
101. Walked the Golden Gate Bridge
102. Sang loudly in the car, and didn’t stop when you knew someone was looking
103. Had plastic surgery
104. Survived an accident that you shouldn’t have survived
105. Wrote articles for a large publication
106. Lost over 100 pounds
107. Held someone while they were having a flashback
108. Piloted an airplane
109. Touched a stingray
110. Broken someone’s heart
111. Helped an animal give birth (was up to my elbows in the back of a cow trying to situate a calf in the right position to come out at 2:00 am, following a vet's instructions)
112. Won money on a T.V. game show
113. Broken a bone
114. Gone on an African photo safari
115. Had a facial part pierced other than your ears
116. Fired a rifle, shotgun, or pistol (every single one, baby!)
117. Eaten mushrooms that were gathered in the wild
118. Ridden a horse

119. Had major surgery
120. Had a snake as a pet
121. Hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
122. Slept for more than 30 hours over the course of 48 hours
123. Visited more foreign countries than U.S. states
124. Visited all 7 continents
125. Taken a canoe trip that lasted more than 2 days (I'd love to do this, too)
126. Eaten kangaroo meat
127. Eaten sushi
128. Had your picture in the newspaper
129. Changed someone’s mind about something you care deeply about
130. Gone back to school
131. Parasailed
132. Touched a cockroach
133. Eaten fried green tomatoes
134. Read The Iliad - and the Odyssey
135. Selected one “important” author who you missed in school, and read (I'm going to guess Jimmy Buffett doesn't count)
136. Killed and prepared an animal for eating
137. Skipped all your school reunions
138. Communicated with someone without sharing a common spoken language
139. Been elected to public office
140. Written your own computer language
141. Thought to yourself that you’re living your dream (for brief moments in the mountains, yes. but in genral, I take life as it comes rather than dream big)
142. Had to put someone you love into hospice care
143. Built your own PC from parts
144. Sold your own artwork to someone who didn’t know you
145. Had a booth at a street fair
146. Dyed your hair
147. Been a DJ
148. Shaved your head
149. Caused a car accident
150. Saved someone’s life

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Good Sign

At our "December Shindig" at the office, I talked to a woman who just bought a gun and was getting her CCW license, and another piped up and said she was doing the same.

And I work on a college campus.

Of course, these ladies aren't on the academic side and were raised with rural-esque midwestern values. But still. Good for them. Good for America.

Merry Christmas :-)

A Random Thought From Sowell

His "Random Thoughts" posts aren't his normal well-developed dissertations. But they sure are fun. And often pointed.

Now that the British television documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is available on DVD, will those schools that forced their students to watch Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" also show them the other side? Ask them.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Good Sowell reading in his area of Expertise


I know. Economics is boring. That's why so few people really know that much about it. You fall asleep before you can wrap your head around it. Which is why Communism is so successful ... not as socio-economic system, but as a revolutionary force. It just sounds so good to the disgruntled masses. But it isn't.

Don't worry. This won't hurt. Sowell is a good writer.
Tuesday, November 20: Income Confusion
Friday, November 23: Inside The Income Statistics
Tuesday, November 27: That 'Top One Percent'

Quote of the day

From Mark Steyn:

When there’s no longer a sufficiently strong moral consensus and when the state actively disapproves of a self-reliant citizenry, what’s left is the law. And law detached from any other social pillars is not enough, and never can be.

You've got to be kidding

I was looking for information on DIY cabling for diplexing satellite and UHF/VHF signals for television, and I came across an article that stated:

... in the UK you must have a TV Licence to watch TV.
I did a double take. Surely, that must be sarcasm.

It's apparently not. You may own a TV without having a TV license, and you can use it to watch pre-recorded programing such as DVD/VCR's and home video.

But get this:

Practical points: a)The TV in question should not be connected to an aerial. The only reason why a TV would be connected to an aerial is to receive broadcast feed. If a TVL visiting officer saw an aerial connected to the TV then both he and a court would assume broadcast reception. b) The TV must also show 'white noise' and not tv stations when clicked to various channels. c) It is probably best to inform any tvl visiting officer that you do not receive broadcast signals and leave it at that, then ask him to leave. Admitting TV use for video/DVD only, whilst perfectly legal, can cause problems. TVL visiting officers are commision based, so want you to get a licence or be 'nicked'. A TVL visiting officer could use your admittance of having a TV to try and incriminate you in his zeal for commision. There was a case in Cardiff recently where a TVL visiting officer was actually forging peoples signatures on 'confession' forms in order to get commision. He was subsequently found guilty in court.

And... and... it's £135 a year... which corresponds to roughly, what, ~$270?

Yeah, all you progressive Europhiles. Let's emulate them!

I realize it's state TV being broadcast over the airwaves, but if they're going to do that they should scramble the broadcast and distribute descramblers with the license. You shouldn't be peanalized for having a TV in your house and recieving what comes over the airwaves.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Disasters, AGW style

So I'm watching this thing on Discovery the other night ... "Fearless Planet" or something, and they're talking about the Sahara desert. About how it's grown, about how it used to be a lush paradise, about how it was once hit by an asteroid, of all the upheavals it's gone through.

Then the narrator (the wife says it was Sigourney Weaver) said something like "but there is a new disaster facing the Sahara." And I assumed, correctly, that that disaster would turn out to be "Global Warming".

Sure enough, that's what she said. But the disasterous effect Global Warming would supposedly have on the Sahara, she went on to say was....

are you ready for this?

... that it would turn back in to a lush jungle!!! *GASP*!!!!!!!


That's right, it would supposedly cool and get wetter due to changing circulation patterns, turning the famous barren wasteland into a font of life and diversity. You know, more lungs for the earth. Undiscovered cures for diseases we're always hearing about coming from our (disasterously disappearing) jungles and rainforests. Habitat for jungle creatures. Livable conditions for humans. Gigantic carbon sink. Disaster!

So apparently any change, anywhere -- in the climate has known for the past few hundred years is apparently a defacto disaster, then, to Enviroligionists.

Part of the enviroligion is the idea that "earth is in a delicate balance". But that is a myth. The earth has been changing from the very beginning. Plant life --- trees themselves -- dramatically "changed" the earth, its atmosphere, its climate. Bacteria. Algae. Huge impact on the climate and makeup of the atmosphere. But somehow, humans are separate. We are a cancer. As if we are not just as much from and of this earth as any other life form we see around us.

Monday, November 26, 2007

I Like This

If you read me much you know I'm impressed by conciseness. Definitions that distill words, yet express all the meaning they need to to cover the bases. This is a thoughtful article, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the premise. It's this little bit that popped out that I like.

As we anguish over the possibility of collateral damage, this enemy practices collateral damage as a tactic of war.
There you go.

terrorism /ter-or-izm/ n. collateral damage as a tactic of war.

Thursday, November 15, 2007


I'm pretty much sick and tired of O.J. The only thing I care about in this whole thing is when are they going to stop pretending this matters to the nation.

I liked O.J. playing football. I liked him in the Hertz commercials. I liked him in the annoucer booth. I liked him in the movies. I was upset that he was suspected of brutally murdering his wife/ex-wife ... I didn't want it to be true.

He got off on that one, though it would be my guess that he was, in fact, the responsible party. Few people think I'm going out on a limb there, I'm sure.

But it looks like we're doomed to months and months of all O.J., all the time again. I can't turn on the news with out O.J. this and O.J. that and frankly, no offense O.J., but I just don't give a bloody rot. Let the courts and the lawyers do their thing and tell me how it turns out. Or not.

Someone pointed out on one of those 24 hour news channels (had to have been Fox because I don't think anyone else would have allowed this to be uttered) .... that things must be going well for the U.S. and Iraqi's in Iraq because it's not headline, all bloody murder and bombs and no American Heroes all the time anymore -- we're talking about O.J. and some machisimo reverse-rip-off of some sports garbage. (In the mean time, Fox is also flooding us with Juice.)




And that's all I have to say about that.

Peaceful Purposes

Obfuscation. It keeps people off their toes. Iran keeps saying that their centrifuges are for peaceful purposes, for nuclear energy. Of course, let's not forget that "Islam" supposedly means "Peace" (actually "Submission") so "Peaceful Purposes" could mean "Islamic Purposes", or more accurately, to force the rest of us into "Submission".

Amir Taheri's column in today's post brings up the following, which I submit to those who buy the "peaceful purposes" arguement. ("Hey, why shouldn't we take what Ahmadinejad says at face value? After all, he says there are no gays in Iran!").
[UN Inspector Baradei's] report should debunk Ahmadinejad's claims by stating unequivocally that Iran has violated the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty on 32 issues over more than 18 years.

He should also expose Ahmadinejad's bogus claim that Iran is enriching uranium as fuel for power stations. Iran has no nuclear power plants and thus has no need of enriched uranium. The only nuclear plant under construction is to be completed by Russians at an unspecified date. But the uranium enriched by Iran at Natanz isn't suitable for that plant, which needs a specific type of fuel - the specifications for which Moscow has refused to give to Tehran.

Because nuclear fuel has a lifespan of three to four years, the Natanz uranium can't be intended for any of the 22 nuclear power plants that Ahmadinejad says he wants to build in Iran over the next 25 years. If told that the centrifuges are working to train Iranian scientists, Baradei should know that, at the level of scientific research, Iran already could enrich uranium in 1978.

The centrifuges working at Natanz can only be producing ingredients for nuclear warheads. Baradei should tell that truth to the Iranian people and the world at large.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

This is friggin' excellent (Mark Steyn)

The Pasture is Prologue

It’s one of the curious features of the age that man demands the natural environment be preserved in an artificially unchanging state while being entirely insouciant to the abandonment of large slabs of his own broader environment. Had 53% or even 39% of the Antarctic ice shelf melted away, even we naysayers might be silenced. Yet the all but complete secularization of virtually the entire western world except the United States in little more than a generation is assumed to be the merest adjustment with no possible downside, unless you’re the benighted paranoid Americans too superstitious to get with the program.

Another Sowell Moment

He's good. Really good.

There are many ways of coping with tragedies. One of the less promising, and often dangerous, ways is to launch a crusade.

Crusades may be emotionally satisfying, politically popular and welcomed by the media. But crusaders are not known for caution, for weighing evidence or for counting the costs, which may extend well beyond the cost in money.
He was talking about the rush to diagnose autism. But it applies in so many other places.


I've been largely ignoring "Plantgate" -- where Clinton staffers apparently planted a questioner at one of her ... uh, town hall, or whatever -- campaign stops.

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but I would venture to say that she is not the first politician to do this.

My interest was mildly piqued this afternoon when I heard on Bob Parks' program what the "question in question" was... and it happened to be an AGW question. And I'd heard this morning that another person had come forward who had been given a question at one event but time ran out before they got to him.

But this... this looks like it's pretty systemic. It looks like Ms. Animatronics needs some high, fat pitches to hit out of the ballpark with prepared answers to appear strong in her convictions about "the issues that matter™", especially after her not being sure about whether or not illegal aliens should get drivers' licenses.

Speaking of issues that matter, I heard one I liked from Newt Gingrich last night on Fox... I think every candidate should be asked this question:

"Do you believe English should be the official language of our government?"
I'd sure like to hear the various answers to that one. He also said there were 11 other such issues listed on a new site I'm guessing he has his fingers in, Americansolutions.Com. Matter of fact, this is pretty good. Go out here and see how much of this you agree with.

I like what I've seen so far.

Rosie O'Doughnut


gave a speech recently, apparently, trashing Bush up one side and down the other (no surprise there). I saw the video on O'Rielly in one of his "read the body language" segements with body language expert Tonya Reiman.

I used to like Rosie back in the VH1 Comedy Spotlight days. I thought she was actually a pretty funny comedian. But now that she thinks she's really important and speaking truth to power, I don't think I could even sit through one of her old comedy routines.

In this speech, after claiming that Bush would actually have to physically take a dump on the actual Constitution (the document) to get impeached, she went on to say:

"This speech coule be considered a threat to national security. I could be thrown in jail."
Which is, of course, nonsense. But not in her head.

In her world, which is her stage, she is bravely speaking truth to power. She actually fantasizes that there is real danger. But I ask, of all that vile, slanderous, and often traitorous things that have been said and done by liberals since... well, the 2000 election, how many people have been arrested, much less put in jail, for uttering anything but a direct, physical threat?

The data does not support the theory here, rosie.

I sense a pattern here.

"First time in history fire has melted steel! Physically impossible!" - (O'Doughnut)

Of course, fire can and does melt steel. That's how it's made. Steel starts its life --melted. By fire. In the case of WTC building 7 which she was so expertly blabbering about repeating what she had been instructed to believe by freak conspiracy theorists -- the fire didn't melt the steel. But it did heat it to about 1,200 degrees. At which point it loses about half its strength. Of course, steel and steel work not being cheap, if half the strength of the steel that was used was all that was needed to hold the building up, I'm thinking they would've used less of it. So, miss know-it-all-o-doughnut??? The building fell because the steel columns and beams holding it up were structually weakened by 7 hours of fire. Fire fed by diesel lines that were meant for backup generators.

The steel didn't melt, but it had, in effect, "gone all wobbly" as the British would say. Not physically impossible at all. But of course, neither is fire melting steel. Granted, it takes a well tended fire to melt it. But it's not physically impossible.

When rosie got booted off the View, there were cries of "save free speech!" "Defend Rosie O'Donnell!" "ABC can't fire her! "

But free speech means the government can't arrest her, not that ABC or anyone else can't fire her. And contrary to her public preening display of "daring", nobody has even thought about throwing her in jail (satisfying as that might seem to some of us). She is free to blather on and we are free to say what we think about her blathering. If ABC thinks her blathering is reflecting badly on them, they have every right to say "buh-bye".

People don't seem to get that. Especially liberals. Their whole understanding of the world is a bit fuzzy.

Monday, November 12, 2007

BBC Climate Questionnaire

I took the BBC climate questionnaire, just for grins.


1 Do you believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years?

It has risen, fallen, and risen again. It is apparently slightly higher than it was 50 years ago.

2 If yes, do you agree with the IPCC's range for that rise of between 0.10 and 0.16 Celsius per decade - alternatively, what figure or range of figures do you believe to be correct?

We have no way of knowing what is "correct". Every method is merely an estimate based on different premises.

3 If you do not believe that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last 50 years, what is your explanation for increasing temperatures recorded by ground-based instruments over that period?

Climate varies. The fact of the matter is, we don't know. Even if we did, I doubt it would be one single factor.

4 Do you agree that the oceans have warmed to depths of several kilometres over the last 50 years?

I haven't seen any data, but I haven't looked. However, one shouldn't be surprised that if Earth's atmosphere has warmed in general, that the oceans would as well.


5 Do you believe that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have increased over the last century or so?


6 If so, do you agree that the rises are principally due to anthropogenic factors?

Maybe some of it. Maybe all of it. Maybe very little to none of it. We don't know.

7 For carbon dioxide, do you accept the broad figure of 280ppm in the post-glacial but pre-industrial era, and the current figure of about 380ppm?

Not blindly, but for now, sure.


8 Do you agree with the principle that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will increase radiative forcing?

In theory it should in a homogeneous black body model with no negative feedback processes such as variations in albedo due to cloud cover. By that same theory, each unit of CO2 increase should have less of an impact than the previous unit. More importantly, the earth/atmosphere system is not a homogeneous black body with no negative feedback mechanisms.

9 Do you agree that the relationship between CO2 concentrations and radiative forcing, given current levels, is logarithmic?

Again, on that theoretical black body, yes. Do you know what logarithmic means? It is the opposite of exponential (or another way of putting that is that the exponent is negative). Each additional unit of CO2 would theoretically contribute less to such a warming than the previous unit.

10 If you answered 'Yes' to question 1, do you believe that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are the most important factor behind the observed increases in the global average temperature? If not, what would you say is/are the principal factor(s) behind the observed rise?

Probably not. See the answer to question 3.

11 If you answered 'No' to question 1 but 'Yes' to questions 5 and 8, what is your explanation for why rising greenhouse gas concentrations, associated with higher radiative forcing, have not resulted in a rise in the global average temperature?

I did not answer 'No' to question 1, but I did answer yest to 5 and 8. Again, check the answer to question 3. There are probably many contributing factors, most of which would have been here in our absence. But right now we can't prove which ones contribute how much because we really don't have that good an understanding of the system.

12 What value, or range of values, would you estimate for climate sensitivity?

Sensitivity to what? CO2? In the past it appears that temperature increases drove CO2 increases, not the other way around. My speculation would be very little if any.


13 What would you say is the maximum amount by which the global average annual surface temperature can vary over the course of a century due to natural variability?

Well, there's a certain ignorance imbedded in that question about what constitutes natural variability and what can and can't happen. Obviously variations in solar output would be a major contributor. Volcanic actvity can wreak havock on what we consider normal by ejecting particulate matter into the atmosphere, as would asteroid collisions. Other than that variations in the tilt of the earth seem to have the largest impact, but it happens too slowly to notice and wouldn't figure in to a 100 year analysis. Climatologically speaking, glancing at a temperature chart covering the last 3,000 years, it doesn't appear that 0.5-0.7 degrees is uncommon at all. Go back 10,000 years and it gets a little crazy. What is clear is that there is no "correct" temperature and that global temperature has rarely remained steady for very long in geological time.


14 Do you believe that if concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rise significantly higher than they are now, there is a chance of dangerous climatic change resulting?

Gut feeling? No. Data to the contrary would convince me. Right now there isn't any.

15 If you answered 'No' to the previous question but 'Yes' to question 8, could you explain why you do not feel rising concentrations might prove dangerous?

I don't believe CO2 is a significant temperature driver in the earth/atmosphere system. Models say it should be, but data does not back it. In fact it may actually contradict it.

16 Do you think it would be wise for the global community to set a maximum limit for atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, or of carbon dioxide equivalent? If so, what limit would you recommend?

Pollution in general is bad. Conservation in general is good. Arbitrary caps without credible justification are wrong.

17 If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increase broadly in line with "business as usual" projections over the next 20 years or so, which of the following statements would most closely reflect your opinion of the likely impact of emissions over that period:

· they will not have any deleterious impacts on human societies or the natural world

· they will have some impacts on human societies and the natural world, but nothing that cannot be dealt with quite easily

· they will have major impacts on some human societies and some aspects of the natural world

18 Which of these statements most reflects your view of the Kyoto Protocol:

  • it was a worthwhile attempt to tackle an issue of global significance
  • it was the wrong approach to tackling an issue of global significance
  • it was meaningless, because there is no reason for attempting to curb greenhouse gas emissions at present (caveat -- CO2 emmisions in general are usually accompanied by actual pollutants -- that would be a reason. But the presumed reason here is that CO2 will drive temperature, and that is not a reason. Which is why this is the "best" answer for me.)


19 Do you believe that computer models, when used in conjunction with observational data, can in principle make meaningful projections of future temperature and climate trends at global and regional scales?

Is it theoretically possible? Yes. With the knowledge we have now? No.

20 If so, would you say current models are, on the whole:

· very accurate and useful

· quite accurate and useful

· not very accurate or useful (assuming you are talking about climate models)

· completely useless

21 If you answered c or d to the last question, could you explain what it is that you believe to be wrong with current models?

Models are expressions of belief, they are not fact. They prove nothing. Another way of putting it is: models are always wrong, but sometimes they're useful anyway. Models can only include approximations of what we understand, or think we understand. The more we understand, the better the model should be, and the better our mathematical approximations of what we understand, the better the models should be. Our mathematical approximations of what we do understand aren't the main source of error. The problem is that we don't understand nearly enough about how the entire earth/atmosphere system works to have a useful climate model. We have useful short-term weather forecasting models, but out past about 10 days they become pretty useless. Here we're talking about years, decades, and centuries.

22 If you answered 'No' to question 19, what approach would you prefer to computer modelling as a way of forecasting future climate?

Keep working on what we have, but don't pretend it means much until we understand the system well and/or it verifies fairly reliably (which would infer, but not prove, the former).


23 Which element(s) of your academic background is/are relevant to climate change?

B.S. in Atmospheric Science, ABD Masters course work in Atmospheric Science.

24 Could you please supply a list of scientific publications (not exhaustive), or a weblink to such a list, which demonstrates your expertise in the climate field?

Nope. Don't have any.

25 Have you ever received funding from a company involved in fossil fuel production or use, or from an institution which receives such funds? If so, please give details.

No. And if I did, what then? The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization which has an
interest in making itself relevant. It is funded by governments which have agendas. Government grants go to people whose research supports AGW. Publications reject papers that tell the other side. There is general interest, though short of a conspiracy, in keeping this idea alive. The money that pays for it is no less an incentive, to those looking to be published, to color research in a certain direction than it might be for someone whose research was partially funded by a fossil fuel company. The fact of the matter is that the fossil fuel industry's contribution to research is paltry, especially compared to what you can get from a government grant or from someone with an environmentalist agenda (no matter how well-meaning it might be). It just might be that the fossil fuel industry chooses to give funding to researchers whose research doesn't back the AGW theory. It would make sense. Perhaps their independent research attracts the funding rather than what the implication is here -- that the funding attracts tainted research. When I listen to skeptics like Lindzen and Christy, I hear people who are talking like scientists talk. When I listen to AGW believers, I often hear scientific language... but they don't talk like scientists. Scientists are natural skeptics and want theories to be backed by data. If it is not backed by data, they couch their opinions in the language of opinion. AGW proponents tend to talk like believers, as if they know the truth and those who don't believe are idiots, or infidels.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Useful Tool

Via Mark Steyn:

Handy tool the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is. Listen in on environmental activist Johh Feeny:
We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.

To which Steyn adds, most insightfully:
It's fascinating to observe how almost any old totalitarian racket becomes respectable once it's cloaked in enviro-hooey. For example, restrictions on freedom of movement were previously the mark of the Soviet Union et al. But in Britain, they're proposing limits on your right to take airline flights to other countries - and, as it's in the name of environmental responsibility, everyone thinks it's a grand idea.

Move Over Heidi Cullen

Weather Channel founder John Coleman has a little something to say about "The Debate That's Over™".
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.

I've had quite a bit to say on it myself, if you're not a regular reader.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Like you care says I'm an Uber Cool High Nerd.  What are you?  Click here!

I Like This

HT: Michelle Malkin

Left as a comment by txvet2 on one of her posts.

Newspeak V1 word for "good"


Fair = Good

Keep that in mind when listening to campaign-speak. And ask...

"Why you keep using that word? I dunut think it means wha' you think it means."

Monday, November 05, 2007

Redefining Reality

I was just over commenting on this post on Morgan's blog, the House of Eratosthenes.

And it reminded me of this post by yours truly a few days ago and the fact that there's more to the story. There's a bigger picture here.

The real big picture is that Newspeak is, in fact on our doorstep.

Words are being substituted for others in a systematic way, vocabulary is being reduced in an attempt to subvert and eliminate critical thinking. Analysis is reserved for an elite group of official spokespeople.

"Racist" was being extended to include any action or thought against any non-caucasian individual rather than what the original definition was. It has even been extended to religions... which aren't races at all.

When thinking people woke up and began to call the progressives on this, they have actually attempted in more than one case to formally re-define racism so that only "whites" can be racist. They even went so far as to specificy that in the definition, and include in the definition the blatantly racist statement that all whites are racist.

Similar things have been done with sexism and bias against sexual orientation.

Everyone agrees racism is bad. By re-defining racism to include anything which progressives don't like that has anything to do with anyone from a country, culture, religion... or actual race that isn't of caucasian and Christian cultural lineage, progressives daily bludgeon the culture that made America great. Even to the extent that this very culture being bludgeoned has evloved from it's own basic principles to reject prejudices against race, sex, and peaceful religions and cultures appears to be bludgeoning itself in some sort of bizzare, medieval penitent ritual of self-flagellation. It condemns one thing while the progressives have re-defined it to reflexively include classic Western Civilization itself and all it stands for.

And while this is going on, Newspeak version 2 is already in development. Eventually, "sexism", "racism" and any other such "-ism" is on track to be replaced by one word.


We're off to a flying start on our way to "ungood".

Just listen. Read a progressive blog or progressive trolls in the comments of conservative blogs or news stories that lay out a conservative argument. "Hate". It's becoming ubiquitous.

All who know me know I am not a conspiracy theorist. I'm actually a conspiracy skeptic. I'm not saying there's a grand, top-down orchestrated conspiracy to do this. Rather, it is being done out of political convenience by many groups that share some similar goals. It is a useful tool to their aims and ends, and they probably use it independently. It is a tool used to obfuscate the issues so that people can be told what to think by defining the language they must use, and re-defining any language their opponents use to mean what they, under the various sub camps under the progressive banner, want it to mean.

Another Thing I Know?

"The only thing they really care about is that you think they care."

Heard this morning on the radio talking about the new religion of Environmentalism (which I call Enviroligion).

This is something I know... maybe I should add it to my list of "Things I Know". But this is the best I've ever heard it put. Succinct. Accurate.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007


According to the University of Delaware's Office of Residental Life

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'
(emphasis, mine)
I suppose bustin' a cap in my face doesn't count?

I don't know. I always thought that racist meant someone who discriminated against or for people based upon their race. I'm pretty sure a history of the word will back me up on this.

Which makes that re-definition of the word "racist" .... well, racist.

Quick comment on the debate

I didn't watch it. But every clip I saw of Hillary... she looked like an Animatronics robot. Eerie.

That being said, I have to say if I had to chose from the "top 3" Dems for president -- which I thankfully don't because the republicans will put up someone better qualified and I'll vote for that person -- I'd [holding nose and closing eyes] have to pick ...

I can't say her name in this context.


Obama isn't an American, I don't care where he was born. And My Little Pony I think is a closet Europhile but I think, at least, he kinda-sorta likes America in a way. Clinton is a socialist (which is the main reason she'll never get my vote), but objectively speaking she'd probably turn up more charred terrorist bodies than the other two. Combined. Dead terrorists is too important to ignore.

I don't care what color your skin is or how bumpy your chest is, I'm voting for the person who walks and talks most like an American.

Friday, October 26, 2007

favorite musician whose politics you disagree with the most

Slate asked Huckabee this question at the end of an interview.
Slate: Who is your favorite musician whose politics you disagree with the most?

Huckabee: I love John Mellencamp's music. I think he may be on a different page politically. There are a lot of musicians whose politics I don't agree with. But there's no crying in baseball, and no politics in music.
This has been a problem I've struggled with since I'm a huge music fan, and as far as Rock goes it's the late 1960's - early 1970's that figure most prominently. I'm a Grateful Dead fan. Crosby, Stills, & Nash are freaking awesome. And Bonnie Raitt breaks my heart. Her first two albums were primo, and then Nick of Time and Fundamental were also great albums (not that there wasn't a lot of good stuff in between).

So it does bug me a little that she believes ... so much differently than I do. At least Crosby and I have the Second Amendment in common. Well for all I know Bonnie might, too. But I don't know.

Unfortunately, there is politics in music, and sometimes I don't agree with those politics. It seems more often than not. On the other hand I really want to like Ted Nugent's music and I just can't get in to it.

Still, I like a lot of his politics.

So I guess I'll just listen on. But for some reason I still can't bring myself to listen to the Dixie Chicks anymore. And I was really starting to like them.

Bill Whittle Essay Index

NOTE (08/10/2009) Since Bill hasn't had time to catalog, I took the time to go find them. The only one I haven't found yet is "History". I have linked them all to their new locations at PajamasMedia. Since I get consistent hits on this blog looking for just such an index, I thought I'd do the deed. These are important essays for our time.

NOTE (5/19/2009) .... Bill says he will re-catalog these. He moved his blog to PajamasMedia, and the cataloging is lost. The essays are out there, but you have to know which archive to look in to find any particular one.

Here they are, the essays from Silent America - essays from a democracy at war (explanation below) - (Bill Whittle's main site is here)

FREEDOM I have the full version archived here.

TRINITY (part 1)
TRINITY (part 2)
STRENGTH (part 1)
STRENGTH (part 2)
SANCTUARY (part 1)
SANCTUARY (part 2)
TRIBES (I just found a copy of the whole thing over here.)


I've been meaning to do this for a couple of months. Bill Whittle has a special talent for doing what most of the conservative movement -- politicians and regular folks alike, are unable to do, and that is to lay out eloquently yet in plain language what is good about America, and about what the idea of America even is. He ought to be someone's speech writer.

His site, -- is taking a bit of a change in direction (which is all well and good), and the important works linked here have become sidebared and are a little lost on his site. I like to refer people to his work, and I don't want them to get distracted right off the bat and miss them. I believe they are indexed here in the order he wrote them. I reccomend reading them in order for a couple of reasons, but each of them stands out on its own as well so if one looks particularly interesting to you there's nothing wrong with starting there.

These are also in his book "Silent America" which is a nice thing to have on your coffee table or next to your favorite reading chair. I've bought a couple in paperback for friends & family, and now have a hardback for myself. That's how moving, how important I think what he has to say... is. Lots of people are saying it. He just says it better than most.


To paraphrase Bill Whittle, which way are the boats headin', man?

I keep hearing about the terrible spread of American Hegemony. I was reading a relatively thoughtful article on mistakes America has made in the past few years... some parts I agree with, some parts I cut America some slack. But I ran across this in it:

... the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint.
(emphasis, mine) And assertion has always bugged me. I don't buy it. The old "so might makes right?" argument against using might, and the idea that if you have might you will nessesarily use it to unjustly impose your will on others. There are all kinds of very strong people, bulky, muscular people, and people who own a lot of firepower who choose, not out of fear but because they are basically good people -- only to use their strength to help others and themselves -- as a positive force.

Might does not make right. But for the kinder, gentler world we all would like to have to survive, right had better have might, or might will make "right" and everyone will suffer for it save the few at the top of the heap.

I think where people get confused comes from the tendency in recent decades to get everyone to believe that nobody is wrong, that there basically is no right or wrong -- and you're wrong to believe otherwise. See the irony?

If nobody's right and everybody's wrong, then what difference does it make what any of us do, and who are you to criticize? Perhaps it's the mentality of the critic. If I can point out what's wrong with you, then the focus is on your wrongness, not mine. And so for the moment, I feel a sense of self-"right"eousness.

But that argument just doesn't scale over time.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Beauchamp is Back

And not in the way you might think.

Apparently the dude chose to stay with his unit and is currently fighting in Iraq. I wouldn't doubt Michael Yon.

Good for him.

The Politics of Selfishness

This is why I'm out here reading blogs. Because somebody, somewhere can put in to words what I already think but can't quite find the right way to say -- and I will find it, and I will be able to express my thoughts better the next time some self-important progressive starts shouting me down on the rare occasions where I actually stand up for my opinions in public.

I don't do it very often because of the shouting down by the "tolerant" left. Yes, I am intimidated, I'm sorry to say. Which is also why I blog. Mostly it's not for other people to read, but rather for me to write and work things out in my head, remember things I thought of, and bookmark things I've read. Yeah, it's great if other people read it. But that's not the primary purpose. It's to help me overcome my timidity in the face of the intolerant Left.

Anyway, this is good. Very good.

Confusing Political Economy with Personal Virtue

Liberals accuse conservatives of being selfish because they want lower taxes... and then they can't understand why generally lower and lower middle class people in flyover country tend to vote conservative, they wonder why. Might it have something to do with principle?

It is common to hear Democrats/progressives complain that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians are selfish because they want to cut taxes instead of spending that money on national health insurance or expanded welfare benefits or some other social program.

But this makes absolutely no sense. Democrats are not advocating spending their own money on the poor; they're advocating spending the money of a very small group of voters who lean Republican. One might argue that this very small group of voters is selfish, but they are not the majority, or even a plurality, of Republicans staunchly opposed to taxes. Or other people opposed to taxes. Of all of the libertarian bloggers out there advocating lower taxes and social spending, I'm hard pressed to think of one who wouldn't personally benefit more from the increased social spending than from the lower taxes.

The majority of people opposed to purchasing the higher-taxes/lower-social-spending combo pack may be wrong on some utilitarian basis, but whatever their sins, they are not the sin of selfishness.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Jena Six - A local newspaper editor speaks out

It should be easy enough to check out his story. And he knows that.

Media myths about the Jena 6
Let's see if anyone challenges what he has to say. The man sounds like his head is screwed on straight. It also sounds like the Liberal Hate-Stoking Machine manufactured a lot more even than we've heard.

Be sure to listen to the interview with the guy on the same page.

Consider, Journalists, when you became a journalist "to make a difference"

"The town itself, however ... um ... there was some division that occurred as a result of all this. There is some uneasiness and I wrote about that in an essay a few weeks ago ... or in an editorial, and there is a little bit of uneasiness among our black and white residents at this point because there has been so much controversy surrounding this case. It's an uneasiness that wasn't here prior to all of the media coverage." - Craig Franklin, asst. editor Jena Times
So yeah, you made a difference all right. Many of you assumed the worst, and the rest were led by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to believe a story that went along with the liberal narrative. And you made a difference, all right. Is this what you had in mind?

It's on Newsbusters, too.


This is hilarious and to the point. Hat Tip to Bob Parks. Too good not to post.

I think I need some cigars.

Morgan's New Word

It's a word we need. Morgan called for its creation a week or so ago, then he came up with one himself. (Hey, if you want a job done right...)

bullcuse /b@l ku:z'/ (v) 1. To accuse a second party, usually in a grandiose and theatrical way, of deeds or thoughts that are actually quite out of harmony with the truth or the speaker’s perception of it. The purpose is ostensibly to uncover one or several hidden agendas and lay them bare, but in reality the purpose is to gain a tactical advantage in front of third parties. 2. More broadly, any act of accusing someone, which is blessed by a substantially greater quantity of bluster than genuine confidence. 3. To accuse someone of something based on feeling rather than thinking. (n) bullcusation, (adj) bullcusitory, bullcusive

Recognizing that members of both parties have been known to bullcuse, we should call bullcusation wherever we see it. It is pretty clear to those of us around here that liberals have a much greater tendency to bullcuse than do conservatives. We should still demand that our conservative politicians refrain from bullcusation, and call out their counterparts when they bullcuse.

The Republican party should make anti-bullcusation a part of the party platform. Something like "We, the members of the Republican Party, vow to avoid engaging in bullcusation, to call others out when they do, and correct ourselves should we ever err and bullcuse."

I'd invite the Democrats to do the same.

Stark Apologizes

After a rant on the house floor where he basically said that the President was amused by our troops getting their heads blown off overseas instead of giving them medical care while they are groiwng up, after first refusing to apologize for it, and after a bill was introduced by the Republicans to censure him for it -- Stark said:

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve..."
Well, that was a pretty well worded apology including an aparent display of humility that is rare these days, and it would be ungracious not to accept it if he doesn't procede to take it back through further words and actions in the future.

Must Read Steyn

This is a warning to American Culture and the multi-culti/nannies lurking within:

No Smoke Without Fire

This is a great illustration of Things I Know #5 --
Multiculturalism = No Culturalism


In Vancouver city council’s action, what was once dimly discerned is made explicit. An Englishman or Irishman has no culture. Indeed, Canada has no culture, save what others bring to it. Which is the logical reductio of multiculturalism: If coming to Canada causes “depression” among “newcomers”, it behooves us to bring Canada into line with “places like they have at home”. Instead of the immigrant assimilating with the host society, the host society assimilates with the immigrant. Which makes sense, given that he seems to value his inheritance more than Canada values its own.
As you start to think about the upcoming elections here in the US, ask yourself which party do people like this gravitate toward, and has been shown to pander to this part of their base?

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Audacity of Mope

If they're playing the national anthem, the hand should be up over the heart.

Especially if you expect to be elected president. But remember Obama said wearing the flag pin is a silly display of faux patriotism when he stopped wearing his. Which I and others actually gave him a pass for. The choosing not to wear one part, not the belittling of those who choose to wear one part. This is a further sign that it's not just about making a fashion statement.

Thanks for the tip from Morgan. Here are a couple of supporting links:

The original Time Magazine article

The Newsbusters commentary

Hillary has a lot more experience with these things and wouldn't likely make such a mistake. I actually have no problems believing it's reflexive for her anyway. Barack, not so much.

It will be interesting to see if at least Fox News picks up on this.

Update: Yup, they did. But Colmes showed a freeze frame of Bush allegedly during a national anthem performance where his hand was held a bit low -- over his stomach -- and made an counter-issue of that. Not sure if it was there the whole time, if it was on its way up or down -- but he was clearly standing at attention and with a posture of respect, not slouched with his hands relaxed in front of his crotch.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Quote of the Day

It takes a Village Family ....

It takes a family, not a villiage, to raise a child.

- Rudy Giuliani

Check out his impressive speech on Little Green Footballs (HT to the Bookworm room). He hasn't been my top man thus far, though I'd vote for him in a flash if is nominated. This makes me feel much better about that prospect.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Stark Raving Mad

Don't know if you've seen the video clip from the House floor late last week where Representative Stark (guess which party) found yet another opportunity and yet another way, to recite the Liberal Creed:

"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
Get the feeling the Dems are getting a little frustrated lately? Things just haven't been going the way they thought they would in Bush's "Lame Duck" period.

Anyway, you've got to love Mark Steyn's response:

I'm not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words – "children," "illegal war," "$200 billion," "lies," etc. – and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: You can say 'em in any order, and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd.

But then again, he ususally is.

Culture of Clueless Calculation

Tying in to the whole "Rush" thing and the Democrats' shameless behavior, I read this in Captain's Quarters. (Do go read, if you haven't already, Morgan's analysis of the Rush coup and how it fits into a certain pattern of behavior. This all ties in.)

Apparently there was an election in Louisiana yesterday, and conservative candidate (and son of Indian immigrants) Bobby Jindal will be the next governor of Louisiana.

That didn't keep the Democrats from trying some character assassination on their way out. They attempted to twist Jindal's Catholic apologetics as an attack on Protestants by taking sentences out of context, and in at least one instance misattributing a quote from John Calvin to Jindal. The Democratic Party tried raising a million dollars to stoke anti-Catholic bigotry in Louisiana to beat Jindal, but in the end only indicted themselves for desperation and intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
No. Shame. At. All. Especially since they're the ones drumbeating the well -worn narrative that conservatives are bigots.

And don't forget about "Betray Us" and the very suspicious timing of the senate comittee's Turk/Aremenian genocide resolution (which... did you notice how quickly they backed down on that one once word got out what the actual fallout would be?)

Friday, October 19, 2007


Senator Reid et. al. have been pwned!

And Reid's doing (attempting) damage control. It doesn't get any better than this.

Incidentally, that's $2.1 (plus Rush is matching it $ to $ making it $4.2 million) to a foundation for the childrien of Marines & Law Enforcement agents... well, read more here.

Rush Limbaugh smeared the troops my red American behind!!!

I may just have to start listening to him occasionally.

Update: Rush's take on it on his website.

Quote of the Day

From a commenter TheEJS on The Ace of Spades. I'm gonna bust a gut.

Always three sides to any truth: your side, your enemy's side, and the transgender lesbian nazi alien side.

Thursday, October 18, 2007


I had a little exchange which I did not persue with a very liberal acquaintance of mine. I said something about "Jackson" on the $20 bill I was paying him with.

He said something about how he was an Indian killer and used to eat the hearts of Indians he killed. (Ok, "native Americans" .... what. ever.)

Now I admit, I don't know much about Jackson and I won't argue from a position of ignorance. As a matter of fact when it comes to these things, I don't tend to argue even when I know better just out of politeness. He went on to say that it was hard to believe that a man as prejudiced and hateful as that could be president. I said "well, those were different times" and tried to leave it at that. (I don't think we should necessarily judge people in history by today's standards... we need to take into account the standards of the day -- and take wild-sounding assertations with a grain of salt.)

The next thing he said took me a little aback for a minute and I had to remind myself that he is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome. He can't help himself.

He said that our current president was just as prejudiced but he relied on others to do his dirty work for him.

Wherever I have disagreed with the man, I have no doubt that George Bush is anything but prejudiced. (It could be argued he has had the most diverse cabinet in the history of the Presidency). I think he is a decent man with a difficult job in difficult times. We have differing opinions at times on what should be done and how, but as a human being I have no problems with George Bush. But these people really believe these things about him.

So I looked up Andrew Jackson and at first glance I can't find anything about him eating the hearts of indians -- although I have no doubts he fought against them and killed many.

But I did find out one interesting bit of trivia. Andrew Jackson was one of the founding members of the modern Democratic party.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Government Schools

This is about the best I've ever heard it put.

Not long ago I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But he makes a very compelling point. One that's difficult to argue with.

Unless you're a Progressive who wants his views imposed on others' children.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Another Quote of the Day

I know we already have one, but this one is too good. You can use it for tomorrow's if you like.
“A word to the wise ain’t necessary. It’s the stupid ones who need the advice.”
- Bill Cosby
Bill holds a special place in my heart from his outstanding comedic work in the 1960's and 1970's when I was growing up. My brothers and I could practically recite whole album sides, and still bust a gut every time.

It's nice to see him fighting valiantly for the heart of Black America in such a constructive way.

I just realized that this quote of the day came from an article related to the earlier quote of the day. So it's kind of appropriate, I think.

The Fifth Column

I've been convinced for some time now that the War in Iraq, and maybe the one in Afghanistan -- would be long over and would have ended decidedly in America's favor if it weren't for a strong fifth column in the U.S. (and the rest of the West -- but the worst part of the problem is here) -- and it's overwhelming representation in the media.

They have made the entire war about George Bush. They're still bitter over the 2000 election. Every little story is spun to show how Bush has failed, how his motives are selfish (accusations over oil, Halliburton), even evil (accusations over torture, abusive wiretapping).

It has led to me, on this blog, being very shy about criticizing the Administration over mistakes I think they did make precisely because the Administration is so overly criticized every day. I feel an almost reflexive need to defend it. It ain't that bad.

I ran across a couple of stories on the net about retired General Sanchez's speech being selectively quoted. When you read the whole speech, he didn't restrict his criticism to the Bush Administration. He also criticized Congress. And he ripped in to the press for its role in our woes in Iraq.

None of the ripping into the press ended up in the big CNN story on the speech.

Their headline "Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight" only reflects a part of the message Sanchez had... the part that aligns with the agenda of the Democrats at CNN. The part that they wanted people to hear.

The story leaves the impression (by ommission and an invitation to read between the lines) that he thinks Congress should have slapped Bush down (Congress failed in its oversight), and that Democrats should have been listened to more ("At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives.") ... but if you read the whole speech it is clear that he was addressing the fifth column elements in our government and in the press.

It looks like it did end up in Fox News' coverage. Their headline was "Sanchez: Media's Reporting of Iraq War Endangered Soldiers' Lives". Fox's article does include Sanchez's criticisms of the Bush Administration as well. Fair and Balanced in this case, Fox 1, CNN 0.

To the majority of journalists it has never been about reporting on the war. It has been about exposing its pre-supposed folly. It has been about politics. It has been about the 2000 election.

If WWII had been reported like this one, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese today.

Democrats and Ottoman-Armenian issue

Thomas Sowell agrees with me, too.

As an unrelated aside (relating to that last Quote of the Day post) speaking of people leading the Black American Renaissance, he should be on that list along with Bob Parks & Larry Elder.

Quote of the Day

From James P. Pinkerton
"The unyielding truth is that any group climbs into the middle class only by embracing middle-class values. This is a "conservative" fact of life that was once equally embraced by liberals, before they "progressed" on to "liberation" as a new goal."
Calling them "white" values and rejecting them only hurts you. And I like that little observation about liberals ideas shifting to an ultimately culture-destroying ideal.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Hate Will Not Be Tolerated

... except if it was done by someone we agree with even if it actually amounts to forgery and slander.

I can't put it any better than Scott at Powerline did.

But I'll add that since the ACLU isn't going to do it for them, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton won't be stepping in, perhaps they should think about a lawsuit on account of their treatment.

I'm not a fan of frivilous lawsuits, but the behavior of the University was reprehensible. This would not be "frivolous" IMHO. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then go read it.

See, I'm not the only one saying it

On the "rush to condemn" Turkey for the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Pelosi's Most Dangerous Ploy

More Gore

Mark Steyn's piece this morning, while rife with sarcasm, pointed me to a Vanity Fair article written last year by Yasser Arafat Al Gore (sorry, I get my Nobel Peace Prize winners mixed up sometimes) in which he said the following:

we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe
Wow! We are affecting the [booming echo effect on] Entire Universe! [booming echo effect off]

He also says:

Global warming, together with the cutting and burning of forests and the destruction of other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a rate comparable to that of the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Mmmhmmm, and drinking water, together with smoking seven packs of cigarettes a day can give you lung cancer.

Notice that clever little trick there? It can be used for anything. Global Warming, together with drought and overpopulation and cultural and ethnic divisions in Darfur, caused civil war in that country.

Where else can we go with this? Global Warming, together with consuming far more calories than he burns off, has cause Al Gore to gain a lot of weight. This is easy. And it's kind of fun. Now I get it!

All you have to do is presuppose Global Warming (anthropogenic, of course, because we are the only part of the [booming echo effect on] Entire Universe! [booming echo effect off] that can throw it out of balance. Wait, did I just say we're a part of the Universe? Sorry. Envirolgionists seem to believe that balance can only be achieved when humans are taken out of the equation, thus rendering us specifically not a part of the Universe.

Serious digression there. As I was saying -- all you have to do is presuppose Anthropogenic Global Warming, and it, together with whatever is actually causing something... is causing that thing! Evidence galore! No wonder it's so overwhelming.

Global Warming, together with a massvie blizzard in the northeast, caused 20 foot snow drifts. Man! This is sooooo cool! I can tie this to anything I don't like!

Global Warming, together with pride, ruthlessness, and an insatiable thirst for power, caused Saddam Hussein to forcibly annex Kuwait.

Look, you can string these conclusions together, too, by supporting one with another:

No wonder Arafat won the peace prize. Yasser Arafat, together with Al Gore's Global Warming crusade, can put an end to war!

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Things I Know #16

I was thinking about that last post and the article that inspired it -- especially the bit about Global Warming as a contributing cause of the war in Darfur. Many, even most people don't seem to know Things I Know #1 -- That Evidence and Proof are not synonymous, either. Which makes this next one worse.

There is a theory that increased CO2 will lead to a warmer atmosphere. But there isn't any credible evidence (hard data) to back it up. So far, the variation in temperature has been well within the natural, historical variation. And every year, the dire predictions get toned down for the near future. The promised big evidence is pushed to "just a few years off, you'll see. Then you'll really be sorry." So day after day we see people struggling to show us, "see, look! Over here! This isn't normal!" -- whether they know anything about what's "normal" or not... and then.... and then... the rationalization process kicks in. Well there must be some way that Global Warming can explain this... which gives us more evidence for Global Warming.

And that leads us to Things I Know #16. Another one I've known for a long time, but haven't thought about it at the same time I was thinking about posting.
16. When people look too hard for evidence of something, they usually find it whether it's there or not.

This is probably not the most succinct example of Things I Know #16, but it's good enough to get it on the books.

Friday, October 12, 2007

The Gore-y Details

I ran across a Gore Cheerleading article on his Nobel "Peace" Prize. You know, the one that Yasser Arafat was awarded years ago. Bryan Walsh apparently has a bad crush on Al Gore.

Gore's win was widely expected, but there may still be those who wonder how an environmentalist could be, as the Peace Prize's description goes, the person who has "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations." They shouldn't. Climate change is already a key instigator of conflict in areas like Darfur, where drought likely worsened by global warming helped trigger a civil war that has claimed over 200,000 lives.
That's quite a claim! According to whom? Supported by what evidence?

the IPCC has issued four assessments — the most recent this year — taking the current temperature of climate change. Reading the successive reports, which grow more and more confident about the reality and the danger of climate change, is like seeing an image fall into focus.
The reports don't grow more and more confident. The Summaries for Policy Makers, which ignore parts of the report that don't say what they want the summary to say -- do. The scientists don't actually do research like you'd think. They review papers from science journals. Journals that tend not to accept papers that don't have something to do withs arguments supporting the dire threat of global warming (of anthropogenic origin, preferably). They then write up a short summary on the few pages they were assinged and that gets run down the hall to the people writing the Summary for Policy Makers -- who then send those summaries back for revision if the scientist's summaries are not "consistent" with the summary that the upper-level summary writers are writing. These are produced by, and reviewed by, and influenced by ... governments and NGOs before the Summary For Policy Makers comes out. Then everybody's names get put on the report as a "supporting scientist" regardless of what they actually had to say about it. And then this last time, the Summary for Policy Makers came out months before the actual report came out.
Drawing on the work of so many scientists, which must then be approved by national representatives, the IPCC tends to the conservative — so its dire conclusions are all the more authoritative and chilling. It's that "approval by national representatives" that you have too much faith in. Those "national representatives" have an agenda, and that's to be relevant and important.
And what makes you think it tends toward the conservative seeing as how they keep having to revise their numbers downward with each iteration as the dire predictions fail to come to pass?

But global warming is global, and the very existence of an impartial IPCC,
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! "impartial IPPC". Indeed. People whose jobs and/or status would vanish if they discounted the very problem they've been appointed to worry over don't tend to be impartial. It is a self-justifying political organization, created by politicians -- that happens to hire scientists.

the message has sunk in for even the most recalcitrant listeners — witness President George W. Bush's White House summit on climate change last month. That success is a triumph for the rational scientific thinking that motivates both Gore and the IPCC. It's the idea that if we simply marshal enough facts, enough data, enough PowerPoint slides, and present them to the world, the will to solve the problem will follow as simple as 2+2=4.
Yes, Power Point slides will save the world. That's been the problem. They've marshalled enough (selective) facts and enough (selective) data that they can put them in nifty powerpoint slides and tell us how to interpret them. Which would be the way they would like them interpreted. Anyone who dares attempt an alternate interpretation or to insert additional data and context into the argument is a "denier".

That spirit was sufficient to diagnose climate change, but it won't be enough to solve it — and here's where Gore has fallen short in the past. The Jeremiah of global warming proved strangely restrained on the issue during the eight years he spent as Vice President of the U.S. — eight critical years when the groundwork for preventing climate change could have been laid.
That's because it would have been political suicide. Actually doing the things they say it would take to solve the problem would impact everyone's lives in dramatic and unpleasant ways that go far beyond carrying a canvas shopping bag or driving a Prius. It would've sent energy prices through the roof and taking everything which relies on energy ... which is just about everything ... along with it. Poor people would not be able to afford to heat their homes. Middle class people could afford to do little else if they could still afford to get to work. And do you think Bigfoot Al would be expected to give up his palace and his SUV convoy to live in a 1600 square foot house and drive a Prius? See it's only important if he can tell everyone else what to do, not to do it himself and take the blame for the consequences.

The scientists represented by the IPCC have spoken — what we need now are passionate, even partisan political soldiers to lead the way and push the final tipping point from awareness to action.

I can think of a pretty good general.
A pompus, self-serving, self-aggrandizing ass? This guy's going to be real disappointed when Santa Claus doesn't come this year.