Saturday, January 19, 2008

INSTAPUNDIT'S SC PRIMARY ANALYSIS ALL WRONG: MCCAIN NOT BIG WINNER

GLENN REYNOLDS:
January 19, 2008

FOX, CNN, AND NBC HAVE CALLED IT FOR MCCAIN. Huckabee is second, and Fred Thompson still seems to be holding onto third. I think this is pretty big -- ,If McCain can win South Carolina convincingly, he can win conservatives and if Huckabee can't win in South Carolina, where can he win?

posted at 09:29 PM by Glenn Reynolds Permalink
WHEN GLENN SAYS: "...If McCain can win South Carolina convincingly, he can win conservatives..." GLENN IS SIMPLY AND TOTALLY WRONG:
  • EXIT POLLS IN SC SHOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOWED IN NH: MCCAIN LOSES AMONG CONSERVATIVES.
  • FACT: MCCAIN ONLY WINS GOP PRIMARIES BECAUSE OF LIBERALS, INDEPENDENTS, AND DEMS.
  • UPDATE: IMHO THE GOP SHOULD PICK A STANDARD BEARER MORE IN TUNE WITH GOP VALUES - CONSERVATIVE VALUES.
Let's see how long it takes Glenn to post a retraction/amplification/correction...

*******UPDATE: CNN PROVIDES PROOF I AM RIGHT AND GLENN IS WRONG:

Vote by Party ID ----Huckabee -- McCain -- Romney -- Thompson
Democrat (2%) -----------0% ---------- 0% -------- 0% --------- 0%
Republican (80%) --------32% --------- 31% ------- 15% ------- 17%
Independent (18%) -------25% --------- 42% ------- 12% ------- 11%

Vote by Ideology -------Huckabee -- McCain -- Romney -- Thompson
Liberal (7%) -----------------20% ----------47% --------9% ---------13%
Moderate (24%) -------------21% ----------51% --------11% ---------8%
Conservative (69%) ----------35% ----------26% -------16% ---------19%
Some might argue McCain's ability to attract Independents and Dems bodes well for the Fall.

I disagree.

If McCain wins the GOP nomination he could very well lose in November because conservatives will stay home - IN DROVES.

It will make the 2006 GOP turnout look STUPENDOUSLY HUMONGOUS.

*******UPDATE #2: NRO/THE CORNER:
[Michael Graham]

...tell me again how McCain is winning?

As I predicted here at NRO, John McCain came out on top in South Carolina by getting the same 1/3rd of the vote in the Palmetto State that he got in New Hampshire and Michigan. But did he "win?"

In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.

Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren't even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.

Instead, John McCain LOST the support of 100,000 people—and he's the winner?

McCain had the same "success" in New Hampshire (McCain, 2000: 48%, 116,000 votes; McCain 2008: 37%, 89,000 votes) and Michigan (2000: 50%, 600,000 votes; 2008: 30%, 257,000 votes).

McCain is a weak candidate by any measure. Only once in his two presidential races has John McCain ever won a majority of the vote, and that was Michigan in 2000.

He has yet to crack 40% of the vote this year, and he's done even worse among self-identified Republicans (as opposed to independents and crossover Democrats).
EXACTLY. (THERE'S MORE; RTWT.)

*******UPDATE #3: THE GREAT ONE:
This Race [Mark R. Levin]

The problem for the Republicans in this race is that none of them have received a majority of the vote. The winner gets about one-third of the vote, and is declared the big winner (usually said to have momentum, or what have you). Yes, he wins a plurality. But none of them have won the hearts and minds of the GOP. And in some cases, they are relying on Democrats and independents for their relatively meager vote tallies. McCain still is not winning conservatives...

...I think most Republicans and conservatives can accept an imperfect candidate, as they always have. But, speaking for myself, I am as frustrated as I believe so many others are. It is hard to see how some of these candidates can draw the movement together, especially McCain, has spent a decade undermining major parts of it.
EXACTAMUNDO.

(BESIDES: MCCAIN BEAT HUCKSTERBEE BY ONLY 3%. HARDLY A RESOUNDING 1ST PLACE FINISH.)

AGWMA: SNOW ACROSS SOUTHERN USA

FOX/AP:
Snow, rain and sleet spread across parts of the South on Saturday, dusting lawns and shrubs with flakes and leading one airline to cancel flights.

Enough snow fell in Montgomery, Ala., for children to make snowballs to toss in front of the state Capitol, although the snow melted on contact with road pavement.

Snow also fell as far south as southwestern Mississippi, with totals of as much as 3 inches, although the ground was too warm to allow it to accumulate. It was that area's first snowfall since 2001, the National Weather Service said.

HMMMM....
  • SNOW IN THE SOUTHERN USA?
  • RECORD SNOWS IN EUROPE THIS WINTER - THE MOST IN 56 YEARS?
  • RECORD COLD AND SNOWS LAST WINTER (OUR SUMMER) ALL ACROSS THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE?
  • IS THIS AGW!?
AGWMA. Man-made CO2 is ever increasing, but temps are not. CASE-CLOSED.

UPDATED CIA says Hackers caused Power Outages (A Lesson in Comparative Values)

To say that this is disturbing is an understatement; it doesn't exactly lead to a high degree of confidence that America can protect its infrastructure from a coordinated attack; and don't think that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Syrians, Iranians are not cognizant of that fact.

I am with Purple Avenger on this one:
Anyone who allows any physical connection between critical grid controls and the internet is a moron. Let's just say that is beyond ordinary stupid and well into the realm of criminally negligent stupid.

People need to get over this idiotic notion of hooking the internet to every fucking thing on the planet. Not only is it unwise for critical infrastructure, anyone with the slightest bit of technical savvy knows it is unwise. The internet is about as trustworthy as a crackhead jonsing for a rock. Would you hand your car keys to a crackhead loitering outside a fancy restaurant and expect it to be there when you came back?

Protecting our infrastructure it is quite simply a Homeland Security "must-have"--if America cannot pony up the capital needed to protect its own ELECTRIC GRID from foreign interference, then it damn sure has no business whatsoever investing in a bottomless pit Government-run Socialized medicine boondoggle.

Yet here we are; a 50/50 nation--a house divided over the rational vs. the insane. And therein lies the enormously critical difference in values between the Left and Right. Socialists want more and more power over every aspect of your lives, and the only way for them to achieve this is to get more of your income and regulate more of your rights to do and say as you please. It touts what is good for the "collective" but that implies above all a "God complex" State empowered to make all decisions about right vs. wrong for you and yours.

The Left's single-minded purpose is and always has been to make every single human being in the US (legal or illegal) completely and utterly addicted and dependent on Government. Its method of doing this is to create "Entitlement" programs to serve humanity's every "need" (like the need to not have a moment of reflective silence in your schools... or the perceived need of some interest groups to not have their tender sensibilities and feelings hurt...)

Socialism will not only destroy America's economy, growth and jobs, it will leave so little money for doing what must be done to protect us and our aliies in today's hostile world, that we will be as defenseless as we were during the deepest "malaise" of the Carter years.

On the other hand are the Conservatives; "movement Conservatives" in fact are the closest thing remaining in the US to the "Classical Liberalism" of its founders. These are people who love this place, and who understand and believe in the vision of the brilliant Renaissance men who crafted the most revolutionary and enlightened document in the history of the world: the United States Constitution. This Constitution--this noble experiment by enlightened men-- changed the world, forever. Because of America the planet as a whole is more wealthy and prosperous that it has ever been.

Movement Conservatives understand and recognize the profound sacrifice that countless men and women have given for that grand vision. And they can't even begin to comprehend the mentality of those who want to do away with all that in the name of some false utopian notion of "equality of result".

When new soldiers are sworn in to our Armed Forces, they take virtually the same oath as the President: not to preserve, protect and defent the Government of the United States--but to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And therein lies the difference between the two major forces competing for our votes today: the Left wants to chunk the Constitution in favor of Big Government, power over every aspect of your lives. The Left believes it has the "right" to as much of your income and your property as they want--and that non productive citizens in our society have the right to vote themselves more of your income.

The Left also believes in the right of unelected, unaccountable to anyone judges-for-life to decide on a "whim" that the Constitution does not really mean what is actually written down, but rather some derivation germane to the elites' mood of the moment, or whatever the Georgetown cocktail set thinks is "enlightened". This is not only not Constitutional, the Constitution was written in order to prevent this very thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read The Federalist Papers. Hell, I think that book should be required reading for any graduate of our schools, and for citizenship for those not born here. Because that book not only explains what the Constitution contains, it explains why it is so important that it is written that way.

But the Socialists care not a whit about the vision of the founders nor the Constitution which is the social contract between our government and the governed. The elites (even Democrat friends of mine...) scoff at this document and comment on how the founders lived two hundred years ago--what do they know, etc... In this, they show their ignorance of all of the carnage and tyranny of all human history, and also of the very basic tenets underlying the reason the United States came into being in the first place.

And so these slaves to our sick popular culture would not lift a finger as our Constitution gradually becomes diminished, until it no longer is even worth the paper it is written on--all in the name of their God-given right for these "enlightened" fools to determine how the rest of us are supposed to live, what we are supposed to say and not say, and what we can and cannot listen to on the radio or television.

And in the process these Kool-Aid drinkers would ruin our economy, destroy the best medical care system on Earth, and sentence a great majority of our citizens to the mediocrity of the "lowest common denominator"--the bare necessities of life. They gladly will steal your money in the name of "equality" of result, never mind that some people are more talented and driven than others; they would steal your money in the name of "saving" a planet that is not dying; they would dilute American patriotism to the point that being an American citizen is no better or worse than being a Luddite anywhere else on Earth. That is, those citizens left who did not suffer the misfortune of being vaporized in an Islamic mushroom cloud, die of radiation poisoning or a bioweapon, or else were assimilated into the one misogynistic religion on Earth whose core philosophy (at least to the great majority of its fundamentalists) is: submit to Allah or die. Because these same Leftists are pretending that there is no Islamic threat out there, and their incredible denial of this truth is going to someday cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Meanwhile the Marxism and Collectivism now en vogue with the leadership of the Democrat Party has never led to a thriving economy...anywhere. In attempting to impose upon free peoples a system that runs completely contrary to human nature, Marxists have murdered over 200 million people in less than 100 years. They have always used cheap emotion, envy, class warfare, identity politics, and tyranny to impose their will. And yet we see their candidates today, still using the same morally bankrupt tactics.

And on the other side of the divide is...well look around. The so-called "poor" in the US have it better than 9/10 of the undeveloped world. People literally risk their lives to get here--even illegally if necessary--because this is where the opportunity is. Why?? Contrast this with the Berlin Wall, which was built to keep the people of Eastern Europe IN. Why do you think that the Socialists felt compelled to build that wall? And why do we today have this enormous immigration problem (speaking strictly from a "desirability" angle)?

Is there any question?? The answer is: it is because of what the Constitution of the United States gave us: Freedom. Opportunity. The chance for anyone to make it big, and for most to make it better here than they could anywhere else. The chance to try something, fail, then try something else. And to say what we want without fear of arrest or censorship.

The reason for the incredible American success story is because its government was founded on the principles of leaving its people alone to pursue what they want to pursue and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Its citizens were allowed to use its labor to purchase property which cannot be taken from them. That is what freedom is. And it is fundamentally incompatible with Socialism.

The United States of America is the greatest force for human good that has ever existed on this third rock from the Sun. This is a fact for one reason and one reason only: the document that was the culmination of some of the most brilliant thinkers who ever walked the Earth, the Constitution of the United States. That the Constitution has lasted this long is why we are so prosperous, so powerful, and so desirable to oppressed people everywhere.

We have seen the economics of an Islamic world that is still mired in 9th century fundamentalism. We have seen the results of economies where half of the workforce (women) are only utilized as veiled baby machines. Now religious zealots in that part of the world threaten us all, because they are working tirelessly to acquire weapons which could kill millions in one flash. They want the weapons because the zealots running the show in some of these places (Iran, Syria) believe that dying for Islam is the desired goal. That is what the Koran says! They not only desire to sacrifice themselves for Allah, but they also believe that the more "infidels" these zealots can take out with them, the greater their heavenly reward.

Right next door to these destitute economies, stands Israel, which has adopted the enlightened Western capitalist model. It is like the hope diamond sitting next to a cesspool (but for oil Saudi Arabia would be as destitute as Zimbabwe...). And Israel is the envy and bane of every anti-Semitic young man who is ready for that "ticket to heaven".

With all of these truths so clear to me, it is astounding that we live in virtually a 50/50 country, where we are so easily divided along the lines of emotion vs. rationality, "progressive" vs. actual Progress, race and gender-based special interest politics vs. a color/gender-blind society based on merit, creativity, and ambition. It is astounding that any educated person with a conscience, a sense of history, and an understanding of the most rudimentary elements of economics, could possibly vote for Democrats and Leftist candidates, who have been promising utopia for almost 100 years now, and who have yet to deliver on their false promises.

It was Republicans who provided the majorities needed to get Civil Rights legislation finally enacted here in the '60s. It was a Republican President who preserved the Constitution and freed the slaves. It was a Republican who stood up to the Socialists in the Soviet Union and freed all of Eastern Europe from tyranny.

Meanwhile it was a Democrat who imposed the ponzi scheme known as Social Security. It was Democrats who have bankrupted this country with Medicare and many ill-advised welfare programs that served only to give people an incentive to remain idle and lazy. It is Democrats who want to act like no one out there will bother us if we just "play nice", despite at least 10,000 years of bloody World history to the contrary.

This is how I see the great divide in this great country. It is getting worse, not better, and it will continue to deteriorate until we have a Reaganesque Conservative majority in this country which will fight to preserve the vision and promise which have made the United States so successful, so wealthy, so generous, and the envy of the rest of the planet.

We can preserve the vision of those brave men who stood up to England in the 1700's, but if we don't start now--if we squander this opportunity now--what once was the "Last Best Hope on Earth" will become a only a distant memory.

Are we going to allow this to happen?

Speaking only for myself: over my dead body.

ASHURA & ROPMA - WARNING: LINK TO GRAPHIC PICTURES OF MUSLIM RELIGIOUS RITUAL

SICK.

Things like this and islamo-misogyny - (and NOT poverty, disillusionment with modernity, or Zionism/colonialism/US hegemony) - are what make Muslims prime candidates for genocidal jihad.

MORE ON OBAMA'S CORRUPT PAST

REZKO AND OBAMA GO WAY BACK - TO THE VERY BEGINNING, AND IT'S ALL GONNA COME OUT IN COURT.
  • SEEMS TO ME THAT OBAMA IS A CORRUPT FRAUD.
  • SORT OF LIKE GEORGE BAILEY - IF HE'D TAKEN THAT JOB WITH POTTER.
  • REZKO IS POTTER.

HEY: All, those jobs lost in Michigan... er um they didn't go overseas; they went to other states

As US auto companies closed down in Michigan, foreign automakers opened up factories in SC and GA and AL and many other states - everywhere EXCEPT Michigan and other liberal states which have too many taxes, too high taxes and regs too favorable to unions.

  • There are more automobiles made here in the USA - by more workers - NOW then in the 1970's.
  • The cars are better, and a better value too.
  • Many are made by foreign car-makers who are making cars for the USA IN THE USA.

If Michigan wants to improve their jobs picture, then all they have to do is CUT TAXES - across the board - and especially on businesses.

This can be done at the state level.

The next president doesn't have to do bupkus.

NOT ONE SINGLE CENT OF MY TAX DOLLARS SHOULD GO TO HELP.

SOUTH CAROLINA PREDICTION: TWO TIED FOR FIRST; TWO TIED FOR SECOND

  • THE LIB MCCAIN AND PREACHER HUCKSTERBEE WILL BE IN A VIRTUAL TIE FOR FIRST.
  • AND MITT AND FRED WILL BE IN A VIRTUAL TIE FOR SECOND.

AND... EVERYONE DECLARES HIMSELF A WINNER.

*******UPDATE - 7PM:

SO FAR... IT LOOKS LIKE MY PREDICTION - (AND I WAS THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD TO MAKE IT) - WAS RIGHT ON:
BASED ON EXIT POLLS, CNN says it's a close race for #1 in South Carolina between McCain and Huckabee and for #3 between Thompson and Romney, but too close to call.

ABC NEWS:
Will the polls closed in South Carolina, Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mike Huckabee are locked in tight battle for first place in the state's GOP primary, with former Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson battling it out for third.

  • WHY WAS I THE ONLY ONE TO PREDICT THIS?
  • SIMPLE: I'M SMARTER THAN THE AVERAGE BEAR.
  • AND SMARTER THAN THE ABOVE AVERAGE BLOGGER.
  • AND I LIKE RASMUSSEN POLLING.
SPREAD THE WORD.

UPDATE #2 - 10PM: LOOKS LIKE I WAS WRONG. SIGH. (UNLESS HUCKERPHONY STARTS DOING BETTER IN A HURRY!)

THE DEMS RUNNING CONGRESS ARE GETTING READY TO FURTHER DISTORT THE ENERGY MARKETS

NYTIMES: The Carbon Calculus
A CHANGE is in the works that could go a long way toward making alternative energy less alternative, and more attractive to consumers and businesses.

It’s not a technological fix from some solar-cell laboratory in Silicon Valley or wind-turbine researcher in Colorado or the development of some superbug to turn wood waste into ethanol.

Rather, the change would come from Washington, if Congress does what it has talked about and puts a price tag on greenhouse-gas emissions. Suddenly the carbon content of fuel, or how much carbon dioxide is produced per unit of energy, would be as important as what the fuel costs. In fact, it might largely define what the fuel costs.

That could shake up the economics of energy, handicapping some fuels and favoring others. Those that produce hefty emissions, like coal and oil, would likely look much worse. And some — sunlight, wind, uranium, even corn stalks and trash as well as natural gas — would probably look much better. “Carbon-negative” fuels that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they are made, might even become feasible.
  • PUTTING EXTRA TAXES ON CARBON IS IDIOTIC, AND IT DISTORTS THE ENERGY MARKET.
  • CO2 HS NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL CLIMATE.
  • GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS NORMAL AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
  • NY'S LONG ISLAND - WHERE I GREW UP - WAS ONCE UNDER A GLACIER.
  • ANTARCTICA WAS ONCE A TROPICAL FOREST.
  • THE ARCTIC WAS FORMED DURING AN OTHERWISE GLOBALLY WARM ERA 91 MILLION YEARS AGO.
  • CO2 IS A LAGGING INDICATOR OF WARMING AND NOT A CAUSE; IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
The Democrat/Green policy is pure leftism: Elitist do-gooders think they can pick winners and losers better than the marketplace.

They're policies won't make "alternative" energy sources more attractive EXCEPT BY DEFAULT, by making good old regular energy sources more expensive.

This has never worked anywhere at anytime in any market. If it did work, then we'd all be driving cars made in the USSR, and West Germans would be clamoring to get into East Germany. And Floridians would be risking their lives to get into Cuba. And Zimbabwe would be richer now than when it was called Rhodesia. AND SO ON.

If we want cheaper energy all we need to do is build more clean coal plants and nuclear power plants and drill for oil in ANWR and off the coasts of CA and FLA.

The day we announce we're building more nuke and coal power plants... the moment we annouce we are going to drill for oil in ANWR and off the coasts of FLA and CA, OIL PRICES WILL DROP 10%.

If entrepreneurs want to invest in wind and solar and coal conversion and anything else: LET THEM.

But don't do it with my money; don't tax me and use the money to benefit one type of energy over another.

Carbon taxes and carbon credits are leftist schemes which will hurt the economy and a declining economy will lower living standards - especially for the poor, and the children.

These schemes hurt the economy because they're of no real benefit; they decrease efficiencies and increase costs. They DISTORT costs and prices artificially.

AND WHY?! In order to reduce the amount of man-made CO2 put into the atmosphere - as if this would change global climate.

SIGH.

This is about as likely as changing the speed of the rotation of the Earth by stream-lining buildings.

HuffPo's Hillary Clinton Sleaze Database

I don't frequently recommend articles over at the Stuffington Roast, but Paul Loeb's latest ("Hillary Clinton's Sleaze Parade") is worth the time. Loeb has assembed a veritable database of sleaze related to the Hillary campaign, including:

* Hired Burston-Marsteller's CEO, the PR firm known for its union-busting activities

* Received donations from Rupert Murdoch and massive amounts of dough from defense, oil and health care companies

* Accepted money from fugitive Norman Hsu, tainted database guru Vin Gupta, alleged bribery specialist Dickie Scruggs, the Tan family (international sweatshop owners), and Peter Paul

* Used mailers that intentionally distorted Barack Obama's positions on abortion-related legislative votes

* Through proxies, worked the court system to discourage participation by voters inclined towards Obama and Edwards, most recently on the Vegas Strip

* In various settings, refused to answer hard questions while planting questions repeatedly

The list goes on and on and on.

14 MUSLIMS ARRESTED IN SPAIN FOR PLANNING A JIHADOTERROR ATTACK

BARCELONA:
Fourteen suspected Islamic militants arrested in Spain on Saturday may have been planning a terrorist action in Barcelona, the interior minister said.

Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said more arrests were expected and the country was on high security alert.

The arrests in Barcelona were prompted by information from several unspecified European intelligence agencies, and there was evidence the suspects - 12 Pakistani nationals and two people from India - could have been planning "a terrorist action" in the northern city, he told a news conference.
BBC:
The Civil Guard detained the suspects in Barcelona as part of a joint operation with Spain's National Intelligence Centre (CNI).

Several premises were searched and officers seized computers and materials to produce explosives.

The operation is ongoing and more arrests have not been ruled out.

Mr Rubalcaba said the evidence suggested that they were faced with "a radical Islamist group with a significant level of organisation which seems to have taken a step beyond ideological radicalisation".

He said the group appeared to have been "planning to equip itself with material to make explosives and so to carry out violent actions".

  • I DIDN'T KNOW THAT CATALONIA WAS A HOTBED OF GOP, NEOCON, ZIONIST, LIKUDNIK, WARMONGERS!?
  • I MEAN... ER UM... WHY ELSE WOULD MUSLIMS TARGET BARCELONA!?!?

It's the global jihad, stupid!

  • The enemy wants to reestablish the Caliphate under Salafist sharia.
  • They will succeed if we don't fight back.
  • And we must fight the Leftist dhimmitudinizers as hard as we fight the jihadists.

More coverage here.

British government renames Islamic terrorism as 'anti-Islamic activity'

Yes. You read that right:

"Ministers have adopted a new language for declarations on Islamic terrorism. In future, fanatics will be referred to as pursuing "anti-Islamic activity". Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that extremists were behaving contrary to their faith, rather than acting in the name of Islam.

Security officials believe that directly linking terrorism to Islam is inflammatory, and risks alienating mainstream Muslim opinion. In her first major speech on radicalisation, Miss Smith repeatedly used the phrase "anti-Islamic".

Source

She should read the Koran. Take the comment in Sura 4:89 about Non-Muslims: "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them" Even Hitler was not that blunt -- though he was just as genocidal in practice, of course.

The above passage is in my copy of the Koran and my copy was printed in India under the auspices of the Nizam of Hyderabad so I am pretty sure I have not been misled by a neocon plot.

Posted by John Ray

Global warming skeptics compared to defenders of slavery in the 19th century

(Probably NOT a hoax given the Green/Left propensity for "ad hominem" arguments)

There is a paper by a Dutch philosopher here -- with commentary and excerpts here -- which makes some stretched comparisons between the arguments of old-time slavery advocates and global-warming skeptics. The commentary is by another Greenie but the closing paragraphs of the commentary are pretty level-headed:
The crux of Davidson's argument is that the US economy now relies on oil in much the same way as the economy of the Southern States relied on slaves 200 years ago - as a key source of energy.

Although the quotes from the earlier congressmen are shocking, I'm not convinced the comparison is helpful. For starters, climate change and slavery cannot be compared. The former is a self-imposed "slavery" to a mineral source of energy; the latter an imposed slavery of one group of humans to another.

And although I agree there is also a moral imperative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just as there was a moral imperative to the abolition of slavery, I do not believe morals and ethics are what will win the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The whole argument is of course an ad hominem one and it would be a fairly easy exercise to strike back by comparing what Warmists are saying with (say) the pronouncements of Hitler and Mussolini (See for example here and here) but is it worthwhile to strike back in such an unscholarly way? Below are two sets of comments, one from Larry Gould and one from Viscount Monckton. Gould says:
The issue of comparing rhetoric is not worth spending any time on. The issue for me is one about the science and scientific methodology (or lack of it, such as in the badly flawed recent methodological position called "post-normal science" -- where, in essence, "consensus" trumps valid scientific arguments).

I think more people need to see the flaws in the science/methodology claims by the AGWAs [my acronym for Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist -- stress on the "AG"] in order to see that "global warming" is a non-problem. So I would rather point out (and keep repeating) such things as:

(a) falsification of data by the IPCC (as, e.g., pointed out in a recent Cambridge University talk by Christopher Monckton);

(b) distortion of the data through the too-often-used ploy of choosing a "mean" temperature in such a way so as to amplify the positive temperature anomaly (see, e.g., the December 2007 issue of Physics Today, p. 23 ---- there, in commenting on the Nobel Peace Prize of Gore and the IPCC, we have a single "change from the average"-vs-"Year" graph showing the highest-slope being for the last 25 years relative to a mean temperature for the years 1961 - 1990; but there was a cooling trend for about half those years, pushing the anomaly up!).

Bob Carter has pointed out plenty of ways the AGWAs can select temperature trends by playing around with the choice of years over which temperatures are being considered.

(c) contradictions, by evidence, against the claims by the AGWAs --- examples are recent (December 2007) papers by Lindzen (on Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously, Energy & Environment) and by Douglass, Christy, et al. in International J. Climatology where models are shown to be badly flawed.

(d) widespread lack of articles written by experts in climatology who have strong scientific arguments against the AGWAs claims (or suppression of such articles, or huge overbalance of articles in favor of the AGWAs) in popular scientific publications for the non-expert. This lack is evident in the pages of Physics Today, The American Physical Society News, Scientific American, and The American Scientist. For an example of a non-scientific publication where the lack plus distortions appear, see Newsweek.

Please note that I would not discourage anyone from taking on the task of comparing rhetoric. I think it would be worthwhile to see what, if anything, is the relevance of Marc Davidson's publication for the issue of "global warming" and whether what he says about the history is true. I, however, would prefer to keep hammering primarily on issues of science and scientific methodology (such as Davidson's incorrect claim "despite climate risks to future generations").

Monckton says:
I very much agree with Larry. It's on the science that we'll beat them, because so much of their science is inaccurate, fiddled, exaggerated, or claiming a certainty that is not possible when studying any mathematically-chaotic object (such as the climate is). See Lorenz (1963), whose landmark paper - in a climatological journal - founded chaos theory with an elegant proof of his now-famous theorem that, unless one knows the initial state of the object in question to a degree of precision that is not in practice attainable when considering the climate, one cannot predict either the onset or the duration or the magnitude of any future phase-transition (the mathematical term for what the enviro-left refer to as a "tipping-point", unaware that every time they use the phrase they are demonstrating their profound ignorance of its significance, which demonstrates the opposite of what they intend to convey).

Therefore it is not possible to predict for more than a few weeks the future evolution of the climate, and the entire IPCC exercise is futile. Very, very slowly, arguments such as these are making their way into the public consciousness and the alarmists realize they are being driven backward. Let us continue to batter them and better them and bother them with hard science.


Posted by John Ray

HEY MCCAIN: WE KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER - (A REMINDER FOR SOUTH CAROLINIANS:)


DON'T GIVE HIM THE CHANCE. DON'T VOTE FOR MCCAIN.

Friday, January 18, 2008

UK'S NHS KILLS THOUSANDS PER YEAR

LONDON:
Poor NHS 'kills thousands'

Over 17,000 deaths a year could be saved if NHS performance improved, a new study claims today.

The Taxpayers' Alliance claims the £34 billion of extra spending on the NHS by Labour has made no difference to mortality rates.

Its claims are based on an analysis of World Health Organisation data, comparing NHS performance to its European counterparts since 1981.

This took into account how many deaths could plausibly have been averted by the NHS - a measure known as mortality amenable to healthcare. ...

This is over five times the total number of deaths in road accidents.

The campaigning group argues its findings show the government's extra NHS spending has failed to deliver results.

  • YOU CANNOT THROW MONEY AT THIS PROBLEM AND FIX IT.
  • ESPECIALLY IF THAT MONEY IS THIRD PARTY PAY - AND COMES FROM TAXES.
The UK's NHS needs more privatization, and not more tax money thrown at it..

BIRD FLU SPREADING AT ALARMING RATE WORLDWIDE AMONG WILD BIRDS AND POULTRY LIVESTOCK

NYTIMES:
India’s third outbreak of avian flu among poultry is the worst it has faced, the World Health Organization said.

The chief minister of West Bengal State, which is trying to cull 400,000 birds, called the virus’s spread “alarming.”

Uncooperative villagers, angry at being offered only 75 cents a chicken by the government, have been selling off their flocks and throwing dead birds into waterways, increasing the risk.

New outbreaks were also reported this week in Iran and Ukraine.
MORE HERE.
  • IT'S GETTING WORSE.
  • IT CANNOT BE STOPPED.
  • 25% OF HUMAN CASES CANNOT BE TRACED TO DIRECT CONTACT WITH INFECTED BIRDS.
  • IT SPREADS VIA WATER AND DUST (WHICH HAVE TRACES OF INFECTED BIRD FECES).
  • IT'S NOT A MATTER OF "IF"; IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF "WHEN".
As it stands now, an H2H/H5N1 pandemic would be the most serious plague ever to afflict mankind. It is ten times more deadly than the flu in 1918.

CROOKED-TALK FROM MCCAIN ON AMNESTY

TOM DELAY DERAILS MCCAIN'S SO-CALLED "STRAIGHT-TALK" EXPRESS.

McCain is a liberal, a phony and a demagogue.

UPDATE: LINK FIXED.

ALL WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE ENERGY CHEAPER IS EXPAND SUPPLIES

The Shame Of Groveling For $100 Oil
Energy Policy: Instead of begging oil sheiks to open the spigots, as the president shamefully did Tuesday in Riyadh, he should be pressuring Congress to open up Alaskan and Gulf Coast refuges to drilling.
  • THE DAY WE ANNOUNCE WE ARE GOING TO DRILL FOR OPIL IN THESE REGION PIL DROPS 10%.
  • THE ONLY THING STOPPING THIS IS THE LEFT.
To defeat OPEC we must defeat the Democrats.

EITHER DUBYA IS JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, OR HE'S BEEN MADE A SUCKER BY IRAN, NORTH KOREA - AND "OUR" CIA

I posted a few weeks ago, that it seemed to me that Bush had just "kicked the can down the road" vis a vis North Korea and Iran.

He seems more interested in twisting Israel's arm into making a deal with Fatah than in twisting North Korea's arm, or Iran's arm or Syria's arm or Hamas or Hizballah's arms.

As Jeff Jacoby wrote this week: the Bush Doctrine is dead - a victim of Bush and Rice and Baker and the traitorous CIA.

Here's more proof that either Bush has become an appeaser or a wimp:

AFP:

North Korea is unlikely to abandon its nuclear weapons before US President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, his special envoy said Thursday, calling for a revamp of six-party talks on the crisis.

Jay Lefkowitz, special envoy for human rights in North Korea, also accused China and South Korea of not exerting enough pressure on North Korea during the talks that first began in 2003 to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons drive.

"It is increasingly clear that North Korea will remain in its present nuclear status when the administration leaves office in one year," he told a forum in Washington.
Of this is true, then I'm extraordinarily disappointed in Bush.

And since the traitorous and misleading but propagandistically effective NIE report (more here) was released, Iran is OFF THE HOOK, and the pressure on them seems gone, and they seem more adventurous as a result; (for example, one mist only think back to that cigarette boat incident of last week).

It seems that Iran and North Korea - with the help of anti-American leftists in the State Department and the CIA - have "run out the clock" on the Bush Administration.

And while this is happening Turkey is STEADILY becoming more and more hostile to the Kurds of northern Iraq and more and more Islamicized at home. This is the same islamicist regime which forbade the USA the ability to enter Saddam's Iraq via Turkey and prevented us from smashing Saddam with a hammer and anvil as had been planned by Tommy Franks. This was a sever blow to both our war and our post war effort.

And Pakistan is destabilizing, and Thailand has had a coup while the southern "restive" regions roil with islamoterror and thousands of deaths.

If Bush leaves the problems for the next president to deal with (as now seems likely), then it is ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT who the next president is.

We mustn't elect anyone to the left of the liberal hawk and wimp Bush.

Been there; done that. It's doesn't work.

We need a real conservative HAWK who will reinvent the Bush Doctrine and smash our enemies.

Or at least be tougher with them than he is with Israel.

WITHIN DAYS OF THE "AL QAEDA'S WHITE ARMY IN THE UK" NEWS, OUR DHS ANNOUNCES TOUGHER TRAVEL RULES FOR EUROPEANS

WE WERE THE FIRST BLOG TO ALERT THE BLGOSPHERE ABOUT THE "AL QAEDA'S WHITE ARMY" NEWS.

NOW THIS - UK GUARDIAN: US considers tighter travel rules for European visitors
US homeland security head Michael Chertoff is concerned at the terrorist threat from European travellers and is looking for ways to vet visitors more effectively.

Europeans travelling to America could face travel restrictions because of concerns about terrorism, the US head of homeland security said today, amid reports of discussions about the formation of an al-Qaida cell in Britain.

Michael Chertoff told the BBC that the US increasingly saw Europe as a "platform" for a terrorist attack and he blamed the current visa waiver programme for European citizens as a reason for America's vulnerability.

His remarks came as the BBC reported a posting to a known Islamic extremist website which talked about founding a branch of al-Qaida in the UK.
IT'S NOT JUST UK'S AQ CELLS; IT'S THE FACT THAT THE CELLS HAVE WHITE EUROPEAN MEMBERS - MANY OF THEM NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS - WHO MIGHT MORE EASILY BLEND IN.

BASIC STIMULUS PACKAGES PROVE LEFTIST POLICIES ARE BAD MEDICINE

Right now - in the USA, everyone pretty much agrees that the economy would benefit from a stimulus package, and that this should includes tax cuts and incentives for investment - and not Tax & Spend policies or command economy restructuring.

Almost everyone seems to agree that Tax & Spend would be bad medicine right now - when the economy is a little "sick".

So... if Tax & Spend is bad when the economy is ailing, then why does the Left persist in thinking that taking bad medicine is good when the economy is healthy!?

You don't take bad medicine when you're sick, and you certainly don't take bad medicine when you're healthy.

In fact; cutting taxes and crating incentives for investment are a GREAT tonic all the time.

Low taxes and incentives for the entrepreneur are always good.

ONLY THE GOP PROPOSES POLICIES OF THIS NATURE.

IF YOU VOTE FOR DEMS - OR IF YOU STAY HOME AND LET THEM WIN - THEN YOUR ESSENTIALLY OPTING FOR HIGHER TAXES, MORE REGULATIONS, AND A WEAKER ECONOMY WITH LESS GROWTH.

Er um... this hurts the poor the most. And the children.

Of all the candidates I think Mitt has the best plan for the economy (via NRO)- (no accident since he's the ONLY businessman and has an MBA as well as a JD from HARVARD):
Bidding to seize control of the accelerating debate over economic stimulus, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is proposing a package with something for everyone. In an interview this afternoon, Mr. Romney said he will propose:

—To permanently cut in the lowest income tax bracket to 7.5 percent from 10 percent.

—To make that cut immediately retroactive to 2007 tax liabilities.

—To permanently eliminate Social Security payroll taxes for workers over 65.

—To provide 100 percent expensing of new equipment purchased by businesses over two years retroactive to Jan 1 2008.

—To permanently reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent over two years.

—To permanently eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes on households earning under $200,000 a year, an idea he has previously proposed.
Bush's is okay, too.

All the Dems are basically socialists - who invoke class warfare, and they reveal it with their comments on the Stimulus Package put forward by Bush:
''For the White House to propose spending over $100 billion to jump start the economy, while shortchanging assistance to the 50 million families who are struggling the most and are most likely to inject those funds into the economy makes no sense.'' --
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in a written statement.

------

''After months and months of watching families struggle to get by in this economy, George Bush finally offered a plan that would leave out tens of millions of working Americans and seniors who need help most and are most likely to spend and boost our economy.'' --
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a written statement.

------

''The economic damage done by Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney is deep and long-lasting, and the temporary tax cuts he proposes will not solve it alone. Making matters worse, his plan provides little or no help to some 50 million low-income and middle class families.'' --
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in a written statement.

------
HUCKSTERBEE'S COMMENTS PROVE HE'S A LEFTIE AT HEART, TOO:
------

''But I'm going to tell you, we need some long-term solutions in this country.'' -- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, who told voters at a technical college in Greenville, S.C., that Bush's plan is ''a good short-term solution.''

------
OF THE ONLY TWO CONSERVATIVES IN THE RACE, MITT'S STATEMENT WAS CLEARLY BETTER:
------

''His outline, of course, was in broad strokes. And it makes a good deal of sense. I will be announcing my economic stimulus plan soon. And you will see it has many similar features. I go into some more specific details at this stage. I think the president wants to work with the Democratic Congress to see if he can't get something done on an urgent basis. I think it is essential that the economic stimulus plan is passed very, very quickly, so that it can have the stimulative effect that our economy needs.'' --
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, speaking to reporters in Reno, Nev.

------

''I think if we're going to have a stimulus plan, that's probably the direction we need to go in.'' --
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., in Spartanburg, S.C.
BTW: The downturn is solely due to the weak housing market and the piss-poor new-fangled banking/loan instruments used to make crappy loans and how these loans were repackaged as financial instruments which have virtually no transparency.

Basically the financial institutions which bought these repackaged mortgages bought a pig-in-a-poke and are stuck with them. They've written them off because nobody wants them anymore; the got stuck with the hot potato, so-to-speak.

The weak housing and financial markets don't reflect the underlying economy which is very good. And with a weak dollar other segments of our economy will make up the slack.

ASIDE: The worthless repackaged mortgage instruments remind me of an old Yiddish story.
One day - a long time ago, in the old country - a young Jewish man, (a newlywed, just starting out in business with the stake he got for his recent marriage) got in his brand new donkey cart and left his little village to go the big market in the big town to see what he might buy and bring back to sell in his brand new shop.

When he got there he saw people furiously buying at one stall. He got out of his cart and went over and saw they were furiously buying and selling tins of herring.

He loved herring - and he knew his neighbors did too, and the price looked very good - and they were selling out. So he took ALL his money and bought ALL the remaining stock of tins. He loaded them in his cart and went back home to his little village thinking he was a hero - a soon to e RICH here.

The next morning he opened his shop and his neighbors came in and each one bought a few tins of herring. HE SOLD OUT, AT A NICE PROFIT. He and his new wife and the in-laws were very happy.

But the next morning, he started getting complaints, and they didn't stop. NO ONE LIKED THE HERRING. In fact, the herring wasn't edible. He gave everyone a refund, took the opened and unopened tins back, loaded the cart and immediately went back to the big town's big market and found the man he bought them from and complained that they weren't edible. He opened a tin for the man. But the man wouldn't even try it. He didn't need to. He knew the herring wasn't edible. And he told the young man why: "These tins aren't for eating; they're for buying and selling!"
This is what many speculators did to the US housing market: they weren't buying houses to make into homes; they were buying in order to resell. The homes weren't for living; they were for buying and selling. And the mortgages for these homes weren't for collecting the mortgage payments; they were for repackaging to resell to other institutions. These two speculative practices created the problem. (It's a manageable problem which the economy will be over in 6 months.)

ONE THING FOR SURE: BANKS NEED TO GET BACK TO BASICS.

LOL! Hitchens Eviscerates Dems' Identity Politics

You will want to read the quote below; it is a thing of beauty.

Christopher Hitchens is a real character: he may not be the most appealing guy to Huckabee's evangelical Kool-Aid drinkers (who if they had any sense of history would be voting for Fred...), but man can Hitchens ever write.

And, as a person whose political journey started on the Left (e.g. The New Republic), Hitchens' own Liberalism has evolved to the point where it is more akin to the "Classical Liberalism" of the founders than it is to anything going on with small l "liberals" these days. In fact it is not a stretch to state that there appears to be very little at all that Hitchens finds appealing about the present day American Left; witness his wonderful column in the Wall Street Journal about Clinton, Obama, and Identity Politics run amok:

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap."

One might come up with other and kinder distinctions (I shall not be doing so) but the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender.

Mrs. Clinton, speaking to a black church audience on Martin Luther King Day last year, did describe President George W. Bush as treating the Congress of the United States like "a plantation," adding in a significant tone of voice that "you know what I mean . . ."

She did not repeat this trope, for some reason, when addressing the electors of Iowa or New Hampshire. She's willing to ring the other bell, though, if it suits her. But when an actual African-American challenger comes along, she rather tends to pout and wince at his presumption (or did until recently).

Here again, the problem is that Sen. Obama wants us to transcend something at the same time he implicitly asks us to give that same something as a reason to vote for him. I must say that the lyricism with which he does this has double and triple the charm of Mrs. Clinton's heavily-scripted trudge through the landscape, but the irony is still the same.

What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?

Far from taking us forward, this sort of discussion actually keeps us anchored in the past. The enormous advances in genome studies have effectively discredited the whole idea of "race" as a means of categorizing humans. And however ethnicity may be defined or subdivided, it is utterly unscientific and retrograde to confuse it with color. The number of subjective definitions of "racist" is almost infinite but the only objective definition of the word is "one who believes that there are human races."

Read the whole thing; it is way too much fun to ignore.

HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT THE TALIBAN WITHOUT LEAVING THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME

RUSTY:
Once again the Taliban are using our own webhosts to distribute their propaganda. These are not "fan pages" or discussion forums, these are the official websites of the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan", better known as THE TALIBAN. Doing business with the Taliban violates US law.

I have been asked by US law enforcement agents to pressure hosts to stop doing business with the Taliban because the agency charged with enforcing these particular laws are understaffed. I. Kid. You. Not.

So, the more that complain, the sooner we get this filth off the internet. I've noticed a strong correlation in the past between numbers of complaints and response time.

Just a reminder: We are at war with the Taliban. Not a cold war, a shooting war.
RTWT.

THE HEATHROW CONNECTION: TWO JETS LOSE POWER IN THE SAME WEEK


The first plane was on its way to Heathrow in London. The second plane was flying out of London to Thailand.

1st incident

2nd incident (first reported by IBA contributor Ray Boyd)

Both stories note that this was a higlhly unusual occurrence. And yet, it happened twice in a week?

Jets often fly back and forth on the same route. Could both of these jets have been on routes which took them in and out of London on an almost daily basis? And, if so, is this an act of terrorism?

It looks like it very well could be.

And, if it is, is the culprit, or culprits behind this attack alive and ready to do it again?

Let's try to dig up more on this.

Barack Obama and Israel

Excerpt:

The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes.

However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign faOade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior.

One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.

Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.

Much more here

Posted by John Ray

THE CRUISER AND FREE SPEECH

Scientology church put stop to leaked Tom Cruise web video

We read:

"Scientologists have forced internet giant Google to remove a leaked web video that featured Hollywood star Tom Cruise praising the niche religion. The Scientology video was removed from Google's YouTube video site today. "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International," said a message on the site.

A Google Australia spokesman denied the company giant had "buckled under pressure" from the Church of Scientology, but confirmed Google had "complied with our legal obligation to remove material".

Source

There is a bit of a surge lately in using copyright laws to suppress speech. If any of these cases get to court, however, I think they will die. Copyright laws do permit use of excerpts and that is all that happened above as far as I can work out.





More on the Cruiser



I have noted before threats by the Church of Scientology to sue anybody who distributes an unauthorized biography of Tom Cruise -- threats that have succeeeded in getting the book pulled from some bookstores. It seems however that the book really contains very little of substance. There is a run-down of what is in it here. The only bit in it that I thought vaguely interesting was the following:
"Morton says Tom "progressed to what Scientologists call 'the Wall of Fire,' or Operating Thetan III, where the secrets of the universe according to Hubbard [are] revealed." Allegedly, "Tom found the knowledge he had just received disturbing and alarming, as he struggled to reconcile the creationist myth with the more practical teachings contained in the lower levels of Scientology...Tom [complained] that he had studied all these years and the whole faith was about space aliens."'

Some Cruise scientology craziness that apparently is not in the book can be found here


(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN, OPTUS and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

You couldn't make this stuff up: "Global warming protest frosted with snow"

News report:

It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law. As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.

"We are going to pass this bill this year," said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George's County and chairman of the senate's environmental matters subcommittee. "We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop....We are going to keep going until we pass this bill." Pinsky and co-author Del. Kumar Barve, the house Democratic leader, proposed a similar but unsuccessful Global Warming Solutions Act last year. It would have created a system of financial rewards and punishments (known as a "cap and trade" system) to force all businesses to reduce their emissions.

The Maryland legislature over the last two year has approved more limited cuts in carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants and cars. Together, these add up to an expected 25 percent reduction.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Constellation Energy and many Republicans oppose the 90 percent mandate, saying such aggressive regulation could cripple the states economy if other states don't have such limits. "It would be harmful for employment," said Senate Republican Leader David R. Brinkley. "We have a conscientious business community, and nobody wants to contribute to pollution, but these guys are intent on making Maryland uncompetitive."

Rob Gould, a spokesman for Constellation Energy, the state's biggest owner of power plants, said federal or international regulation of greenhouse gases makes more sense. And he suggested that power shortages could result from excessive state regulation. "Constellation Energy is very supportive of federal and international regulation. Our concern with last year's bill was that it limited the ability to trade to sources inside Maryland. Given that the only way to reduce CO2 from non-nuclear power plants is to run those plants less, our concern remains that a single small state like Maryland cannot meet these aggressive targets without reliability impacts occurring." ....

Many of the protesters who endured the cold to chant "Stop Global Warming!" said they didn't think the snowfall conflicted with their message. Davey Rogner, a 22 year old student at the University of Maryland College Park, beat on an African Djembe drum to rev up the crowd. He said the snow was a "gift" to remind eveyone about how rarely Maryland has been blanketed with beautiful white in recent years as temperatures have increased. "Its only the second snow of the year, which is very sad," said Rogner, from Silver Spring. "Global warming is the most improtant issue of our generation. The state of Maryland should be taking a leadership role in it, because of our vulerability with all our shoreline." Barve said the snow was a good sign: "At least we have weather appropriate for winter time, finally." ....

A nonpartisan analysis of last year's proposal, by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, said the law would impose new regulations on "all businesses, small and large" across the state. "Accordingly, costs could increase significantly, but any such increase cannot be reliability calculated at this time."

More here





It's all happened before: An explanation from psychology of why the global warming cult shows little response to contrary evidence

On noting the unfazed response of the demonstrators above to their patently ludicrous situation, I thought it was time to draw attention to some old wisdom from psychology. Problematical global warming is a prophecy, not a reality, so studies of what adherents to prophecies do when the evidence is against them are very relevant:

In studying this phenomenon, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article.

Festinger observes:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as:

(a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken,

(b) the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen),

(c) the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize. All of these characteristics were present in the saucer cult.

Of particular interest in Festinger's book is how the followers of Mrs. Keech reacted to each disconfirmation (failed date). Little attempt was made to deny the failure. The strength to continue in the movement was derived, not largely from the rationalizations , but from the very energy of the group itself and its dedication to the cause. This explains why proselytizing was so successful later in reinforcing the group's sagging belief system. Festinger relates:
"But whatever explanation is made it is still by itself not sufficient. The dissonance is too important and though they may try to hide it, even from themselves, the believers still know that the prediction was false and all their preparations were in vain. The dissonance cannot be eliminated completely by denying or rationalizing the disconfirmation. But there is a way in which the remaining dissonance can be reduced. If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselytizing following disconfirmation. If the proselytizing proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it."

In the end, the members of the flying saucer cult did not give up their faith in the Guardians from outer space with their promises of a new world. Despite numerous prophecies and the resultant disappointment accentuated by many personal sacrifices, the group remained strong. Summarizing the final stages of the flying saucer cult, Festinger says:
"Summarizing the evidence on the effect that disconfirmation had on the conviction of group members, we find that, of the eleven members of the Lake City group who faced unequivocal disconfirmation, only two, Kurt Freund and Arthur Bergen, both of whom were lightly committed to begin with, completely gave up their belief in Mrs. Keech's writings. Five members of the group, the Posts, the Armstrongs, and Mrs. Keech, all of whom entered the pre-cataclysm period strongly convinced and heavily committed, passed through this period of disconfirmation and its aftermath with their faith firm, unshaken, and lasting. Cleo Armstrong and Bob Eastman, who had come to Lake City heavily committed but with their conviction shaken by Ella Lowell, emerged from the disconfirmation of December 21 more strongly convinced than before..."

Excerpt above from here

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN, OPTUS and TELSTRA/BIGPOND. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

SEVEN GIRLS FREED FROM UNJUST JAILING

Well this is fortunate. I'd heard about this earlier, and wanted to add a post on it, but hadn't been able to until now. The news is:
(IsraelNN.com) The Jerusalem Magistrates Court ordered the release of the seven minor girls who have been imprisoned for three weeks despite their continued refusal to cooperate with the justice system. The first was released Thursday when it became clear that police knew her identity from a card in her posession and rest were released Friday after a court-order required the parents to identify their daughetrs. A fast day on their behalf took place Thursday.

The first 14-year-old girl that was ordered released after police admitted she had been identified due to a card that was among her possessions. She continued to refuse to identify herself, along with her six friends. The girl was forcibly evicted from Gush Katif during the 2005 Disengagement and lives at the Nitzan caravan camp with hundreds of other expellees.
Here's a video recording of this as well.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Voter ID and the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Democrat Party

Democrats have argued for years that requiring IDs of voters is onerous, disenfranchises the elderly poor, and causes smoking.

Opponents of [voter ID] laws, including Democrats and the AARP, say the measures would suppress voter turnout among the elderly, poor and minorities who are less likely to have government-issued photo IDs... "It's another hurdle in the way of voters," said Neil Bradley of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Of course, the Democrat Party position on voter ID hinges on the situation.

Today, the Journal's John Fund highlights the Democrats' nuanced position:

Democrats ignore that it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday

D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.

...Democrats will also be asking for identification at caucus sites...

We need a new word that means "egregious hypocrite." Or perhaps the term we should use is simply "Democrat."

Put simply, the only thing voter ID deters is fraud. Without identification, a person cannot apply for welfare, can't drive, can't fly, can't hold a job, can't have a bank account, can't apply for either social security, Medicare or Medicaid, and can't apply for food stamps or WIC.

So much for hurting the "elderly, poor and minorities."

What Is Bush Thinking? Ask Fred on 2nd Amend. Rights

My readers all know that I am a strong supporter of President Bush even though he has sometimes taken actions that leave me baffled. I am talking about such things as signing the McCain-Feingold bill, pushing for the No Child Left Behind legislation and involving himself in the Terry Sciavo case. This week Fred Thompson made a statement about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the overturn of Washington D.C.’s outrageous gun control laws that also left me baffled until I looked into the matter.

What has happened is that the Bush Administration has, unbelievably, filed a brief in this case asking that it be returned to the lower court for “fact-finding”. What this really means is that the Bush Justice Dept. wants the lower court to reconsider its finding that D.C.’s gun bans are unconstitutional, and come up with a less definitive decision that attorneys, politicians and gun-control groups can use to find ways to finesse this affirmation of our basic rights.

It takes a little digging to figure out just what is going on here, but it made my Florida vote yesterday (we have early voting in Florida’s primary) for Fred Thompson even more fulfilling to realize that Fred figured out right away what this action meant, and immediately spoke out against it. In fact, I don’t believe any of the other Republican candidates have made statements or are even aware of this development.

I have posted below an excerpt from the RedState.com blog and also a statement from the NRA on this subject:

RedState.com
Gun rights advocates were understandably dismayed when the Bush Administration Justice Department submitted a brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, the big Second Amendment case to be argued later this term, calling for a remand of the case for reconsideration of D.C.'s gun laws under a less demanding constitutional standard. Given the Bush Administration's support for an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment, many find it incomprehensible that the Administration would not support the D.C. Circuit decision holding D.C.'s draconian gun restrictions unconstitutional. The DoJ's brief is also a potentially unwelcome development in the Presidential race, as it could dampen gun owners' support of GOP candidates.

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa's Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.'s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General's request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding", the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was "overlawyering" and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Excerpt; See Rest At: From Sea to Shining Sea

Eminent Domain

According to this page at ExpertLaw.com,
Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use....

[...]

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway....

[...]

In recent decades there has been growing concern about the manner in which some states and units of government exercise their power of eminent domain. Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers or commercial interests...


Is this an appropriate use of eminent domain?

Excerpt from a January 16, 2008 article in the Washington Post:
LE ROY, Ill. -- This expanse of central Illinois is flat as a pancake, with corn and soybean fields stretching to the horizon, interrupted only by a smattering of small towns.

But it is also a 175-mile missing link in Enbridge's Alberta-to-Texas pipeline network to transport gooey, thick bitumen oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

By connecting the southern Illinois oil transport hub of Patoka with an Enbridge pipeline near Pontiac, the Canadian firm, in partnership with Exxon Mobil, could beat out other companies that have also announced plans for pipelines connecting Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Several farmers are standing in Enbridge's way, however, refusing to let the company build the pipeline through their land. At a public meeting, Bob Kelly, 81, called Enbridge "highway robbers." He said there is no way he will allow the company to tear up farmland that has been in his family for 125 years. "It's not for sale at any price," he said.

Enbridge is offering to pay farmers market value for use of a 120-foot-wide strip of their land, plus fees for crop loss and soil damage. The farmers would retain the rights to their land, and the company said they could continue farming on top of the pipeline, which would be five feet underground once completed. A number of farmers have signed on.

"It should be seen as progress to bring some crude oil down here to central Illinois," said John Gramm, 76, of Gridley. "It's good for business and labor, and it makes us less dependent on foreign oil."...
Anybody with an ounce of sense realizes that we need to become less dependent on foreign oil. But, according to the article,
"This is not a public agency carrying out a public project like a highway," said Howard A. Learner, president of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, based in Chicago. "It's a private Canadian company moving oil to make a profit."

[...]

Thomas J. Pliura, a Le Roy attorney for residents opposed to the petition, said locals think they would get no direct benefit from the pipeline.

"The irony is you have a Canadian foreign company coming in here demanding eminent domain to take American land to transport oil that could then be sold to China," said Pliura...
Is Mr. Pliura exagerrating? Maybe. But maybe not.

Just how much outsourcing can America endure?