My New Hero

Ladies and gentlemen, the brilliant and erudite Mr. Pat Condell:

But wait... there's more!

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 1:07 AM

Great Moments Poseurs in Presidential Campaign History

Yeah, I'm convinced...

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:39 AM

Shall NOT be infringed.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 10:07 AM

Report: German soldiers too fat

Achtung!

German soldiers are overweight, smoke too much and do not engage in enough sports, according to a report published Tuesday by the parliamentary commissioner for the defence force. "Male and female soldiers are too fat, partake little in sports and pay too little attention to what they eat," Reinhold Robbe said in his official report to parliament. He called the situation "shocking."In the 18-29 age-group, military personnel are in worse condition than their civilian counterparts, with 40 per cent of soldiers overweight against 35 per cent in the general population, according to Robbe. Despite the widespread availability of sports equipment in the army, more than 20 per cent don't engage in any sports at all. Robbe also noted that an alarming 70 per cent of military personnel were smokers.

Big deal. It's not as if they have to fight anyone stronger than Fwance.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 10:22 AM

Of Chips and Old Blocks...

When encountering Pod People:

• Do not make eye contact with them.
• If they bare their teeth, cover your crotch.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:57 AM

Religious Tolerance In Euroweenieland

History has a funny way of repeating in Germany.

Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in Germany.

No, of course not. And why, you ask?

For years, Scientology has been monitored by German intelligence agencies, who claim the movement's structures and methods could pose a threat to the rule of law and "democratic order".

Oh, you mean like jihad? Can we expect the German government to outlaw Islam next?

Well... no. For one thing, this case has nothing to do with Scientology being a threat to democracy; it's because that the Scientologists are just God-damned L. Ron-damned freaky. And besides, outlawing the one religion in Germany that truly is a threat to democracy would just make the jihadists angry, and then they'll start killing and no one wants that. Remember, threats to democracy that possess bombs must be appeased, that is the European way.

Scientologists, on the other hand, are harmless, they won't kill anyone, so it's OK to drive them out of Der Fatherland. And frankly, they're probably doing them a favor; if Germany drives them out now Scientologists will be better off because in a few years when jihad runs its course Sharia law will be less kind to infidel Scientologists than it is to Islamic women. But I digress...

Regarding Scientology... Though I am not a believer in any religion (unless standard-model big-bang cosmology is a religion), I'm fairly tolerant of other peoples' right to worship whatever or whomever they please - an imaginary old man with a white beard, trees, mountains, the Sun, John Coltrane, or simply themselves - as long as they don't kill or otherwise punish those who disagree. Go in peace, I say, and practice your religion - in public, even. None of it offends me or my sensibilities, and it is pretty well covered by that less-mentioned part of the First Amendment (see "free exercise thereof", just before the "freedom of speech" clause). If it makes you feel good, then I'm OK with it. Just don't tell me I must worship your tree.

I see this right of Americans to freely worship as one pleases as yet another reason to be thankful we don't live in Euroweenieland, where the rights of man are granted, not affirmed, by government. The difference seems subtle until one understands that a government which grants rights can just as easily revoke them, as we have seen all too often in Europe. (Then, as history shows, all hell breaks loose, and America has to step in to rescue the ungrateful bastards once again. But there I go, digressing again...) I suppose once Germany gets through with the Scientologists, the UN will give them their own Middle East homeland. This, too, always works out well.

I guess my big question to Europe is: Don't you fucking people have anything better to worry about than Scientology?!?!? If you're not sure, here's a clue: Follow the smell of burning cars.

At the same time it never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people can be willingly duped into the practice of the singular religion we actually know for certain is make believe. Not just invented, but done so cynically by a science fiction writer because he wanted to make money. For every seat there's an ass, I guess.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 7:19 PM

Death To Those Who Say Islam Is Violent!!!

Our favorite peaceful religious group has gone off it's collective meds again.

Calls in Sudan for Execution of British Teacher

NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov. 30 — Hundreds of demonstrators in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, poured into the streets on Friday demanding the execution of a British teacher who was convicted of insulting Islam because her class of 7-year-olds named a teddy bear Muhammad.

What can one say? Other than...


UPDATE 12/3:

Teddy row teacher freed from jail

A UK teacher has been released and handed over to British officials in Sudan after being jailed for letting her class name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, a mother-of-two from Liverpool, was freed four days after receiving a 15-day sentence. [...]

In a statement read out by Baroness Warsi, Mrs Gibbons said: "I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone and I am sorry if I caused any distress."

And therein lies the rub: a citizen of a ostensibly civilized nation, one who chooses to live in a third-word cesspool in order to help improve the lives of third-world cesspool dwellers, is thrown into a jail cell as the monkeys threaten to behead her, all because one of her students named a fucking teddy bear after their peaceful prophet. And she's the one apologizing?

I can't wait for Hollywood's movie version of this dramatic comedy - the one that pins the blame for the whole thing on Bush.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 8:19 AM

Global Warming Wealth Redistribution Update

And now the truth is revealed.

Bali: now the rich must pay
A fair and global effort to tackle climate change needs wealthy states to take the lead in CO2 cuts

Read the complete socialist tripe here.

So the plan goes something like this: the "rich" countries (i.e., the USA) will cough up hundreds of billions (that's billions with a "b") which will then be distributed to the "poor" countries in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This, we're told, will Save The Planet™.

There's no mention of who, exactly, will be in charge of redistributing the hundreds of billions of dollars but I suspect it will be the United Nations. And why not the UN? They've done such admirable work in the past, of course they would be the logical choice to administer the largest global wealth redistribution scheme in history.

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 11:53 AM

The One Amendment That Guarantees All The Others

All the news that's shit to print:

The Court and the Second Amendment
NY Times: November 21, 2007

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia's stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court's move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution's text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Much hinges on how the justices interpret the Second Amendment, which says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]

Here's how I interpret the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Just like it says. It's right there, in the Bill of Rights, in black and white. As I've asked recently, what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? Only in the bizarro world of Liberal America is it considered to be a "radical decision" when a federal judge actually reads the fucking document. Let us continue:

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Only if you're a fucking retard. For the rest of us there is no "creative editing" required - it says what it says. And if you're unsure of what the founders meant when they said it, go to your library and dust off a copy of the Federalist Papers. Or just click here.

Why is it that elitist leftoids consider only certain parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be "living and breathing" (i.e., the parts they don't like which inconvenience their Master Plan) while other parts are set in stone and unassailable (such as the free speech clause of the First Amendment, which leftoids love because it gives them license to spew whatever nonsense they please)? Using the Times' own "logic" one could argue that a lot has changed since the nation's founding with regards to speech. For example, in this day of the Internet and instant global communications it is possible, say, for a treasonous group of anti-Americans posing as a "news" organization to instantly transmit state secrets to this country's enemies in time of war under the guise of journalism, in order to bring about the defeat of our troops fighting overseas. Perhaps this will prompt the New York Times editorial board to call for the Supreme Court to reexamine and "interpret" how the First Amendment, and it's so-called free speech clause, should be applied based on a more modern outlook. Yeah, right...

The "fear" of the New York Times and their ilk is of a well-armed populace. My fear is of a government that disarms its own law-abiding citizens. Based on recent history, I'd say that my fear is a bit more justified:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

Can the New York Times justify its fears by citing a single example of dictatorship and genocide in a nation which affirms its citizens' right to defend itself? I didn't think so.

Tomorrow in the Times: A study that shows firearms cause global warming.

Don't. Tread. On. Me.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:31 PM

The Second Amendment For Dummies

What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 10:23 PM

Poll: More Than Half Refuse To Believe Media Efforts To Convince Dumb-Asses That U.S. Is In Recession When In Fact It Is Not

From CNN:

Poll: Nearly half think U.S. in recession

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Nearly half of Americans think the U.S. economy is in a recession — close to 46 percent of those surveyed in a new CNN-Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Thursday morning say the country’s economy is in a recession while 51 percent of those questioned say no.

The poll finds a major difference of opinion between black and white Americans — 69 percent of black Americans questioned in the survey say the country’s in a recession while only 42 percent of white Americans feel the same way.

According to CNN’s Ali Velshi, the National Bureau of Economic Research defines a recession as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.”

The recession numbers may be having an impact on President Bush’s approval rating.

Thanks to CNN for taking the time to define what a recession is. It occurs to me that statistics like GDP, real income, employment rates, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales and the like, are all numbers that economic experts (such as at CNN) would have at their fingertips. If the USA was really in a recession, I'd think they would have published some of these stats to support this vague, nebulous feeling that close to 46% of those polled have. I'm mean, wouldn't that be newsworthy - a full 54% of those polled think we're not in a recession, even though the numbers prove them wrong.

Let's take a look at some of these statistics, courtesy of the US Departments of Commerce and Labor:

• GDP: Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the second quarter of 2007, according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.6 percent.
  
  
• Income: Personal income increased $40.2 billion, or 0.3 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $37.2 billion, or 0.4 percent, in August, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $54.8 billion, or 0.6 percent. In July, personal income increased $61.5 billion, or 0.5 percent, DPI increased $60.3 billion, or 0.6 percent, and PCE increased $37.3 billion, or 0.4 percent, based on revised estimates.
  
  
• Employment: Employment rose in September, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Departmentof Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 110,000 following increases of 93,000 in July and 89,000 in August (as revised). In September, health care, food services, and professional and technical services continued to add jobs, while employment trended down in manufacturing and construction. Average hourly earnings rose by 7 cents, or 0.4 percent.
  
  
• Production: Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments) increased $94.7 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $16.5 billion in the first quarter. Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $37.4 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $0.2 billion in the first.
  
  
• Sales: Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent in the first. Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever produced -- increased 2.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.1 percent in the first.
  

Does that sound like a recession to you? I didn't think so.

So, why not report these numbers? Were I a cynic I might surmise it's because they show that we're not in a recession - at least not by any definition of "recession" accepted by a rational person with even the most rudimentary understanding of economics - and the sole reason for this article is to make people, who are either too lazy or too stupid to do their homework, believe we are - and quickly, too, 'cause the 2008 is coming up! Indeed who, other than a cynic, would ever question the motives of a virtuous bastion of journalistic integrity such as CNN?

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:35 AM

Peace of Shit

I first realized the Nobel Peace Prize was nothing more than a left-wing popularity contest in 1991, when the prize was awarded to the man who ended the Cold War and set Eastern Europe on its course to freedom and democracy.

No, stupid - not Ronald Reagan. We're talking about Mikhail Gorbachev.

Not quite three months after being awarded the Peace Prize, the peaceful Gorbachev sent Soviet tanks into Lithuania to crush a pro-democracy independence movement. The cries of outrage from The World Community™ was deafening. No, wait - it was the silence from said World Community™ that was deafening.

This, I believe, is when it became clear to me that the Nobel Peace Prize is a fraud, and the committee that selects it's winner each year is simply a bunch of Euroweenies that select whomever will embarrass the United States the most. Hence follow-up winners like Yassir Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jim E. Carter. Powerline does a nice job of detailing "this subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years." Carter's win in particular confirmed the notion that the peace prize has little to do with peace, when the head of the selection committee actually had the honesty to come out and say that Carter was chosen in order to slap George W. Bush in the face over Iraq. Any self-respecting American would have told them to shove the award, but then who would ever describe Jim E. as "self-respecting"... or "American", for that matter? Jim E., like all good lefties, surely considers himself a citizen of The World Community™; America just happens to be the place he escaped from. But I digress...

Today we learn that the recipient of the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace is none other than Earth's Preeminent Climatologist. What global climate has to do with "peace" escapes me, but there it is. Fortunately, this time the award has nothing to do with politics or embarrassing the Bush administration; I know this because they said so:

"We face a true planetary emergency," Gore said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

The Nobel committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, asserted that the prize was not aimed at the Bush administration, which rejected Kyoto and was widely criticized outside the U.S. for not taking global warming seriously enough.

This explanation leaves me a little confused. One would think"Peace" refers to a state in which two (or more) nations (or tribes, or ethnic groups, or some other type of political entity) get along with one another. That would make "peace" implicitly a political matter. If the alleged climate crisis is "not a political issue," how can it be a matter of peace? Will all wars end once we set the thermostat to a comfy temperature? Are jihadists beheading infidels because the polar ice cap is shrinking? What exactly is the connection between climate and peace? Ah, the answer is all the wat at the bottom of the article:

"It is a question of war and peace," said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. "We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

You've surely heard of the "climate wars," right? That's why World Community™ hasn't been able to stop the genocide in Darfur - because they've been busy keeping the peace between nomads, herders and farmers in the Sahel belt. Somehow I get the feeling that they actually believe the bullshit they spew.

I'm just an ignorant Global Warming Denier, but I believe that climatology is a scientific field, thus Earth's Preeminent Climatologist would be more apt to win one of the Nobel Prizes for science rather than the overtly political Peace prize. After all, political honors should be bestowed upon politicians, and Al Gore is nothing of the sort. Well, certainly not since the year 2000 when he retired from politics and embarked upon his brilliant climatology career. Still, I can't shake the idea that the reason Gore was not awarded a scientific award, perhaps, was that his assertions of impending doom and catastrophe would then have to hold up under real scientific scrutiny. Why spoil a perfectly good Nobel Prize with inconvenient details like that?

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 11:04 AM

Just when I thought he never had a job...

...I find I was wrong all along - he's a climatologist!

Charles warns US of climate threat
Oct 10 01:23 PM US/Eastern

The Prince of Wales has told the US Congress of the urgent need to tackle global warming.

A letter he wrote discussing the "serious threat climate change poses to humanity" was read out to the influential House of Representatives' Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

It told the committee about the work of The Prince's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, two members of which appeared at the hearing.

The Prince, who is a renowned environmental campaigner, said the group has demonstrated that "tackling climate change is the way to ensure economic security of the longer term and that it can be done in a way that does not limit the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries".

He went on: "A challenge of the magnitude of climate change requires a coordinated response, based on actions across every sector of society, and the business community is going to be critical in achieving this."

No. The real challenge is for rich and famous elitists to keep their pie-holes shut and stick to things they know something about - like how to hoodwink the gullible British people into bankrolling the high lifestyle of a bunch of useless, inbred douchebags for 800-odd years, for example. Now bugger off, as they say, and take Al and Leo with you.

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 9:46 PM

Worth 1,000 Words...

What more can one say?

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 9:33 AM

Celebrate Che Day

Another solemn day for Lefties is upon us - the 40th anniversary of the day this commie cocksucker began to burn in hell after being put down like a vicious dog (which of course he was). In a just world, his corpse would be dug up and killed again. Jay Ambrose will never be a political science professor at any major American university after this bit of blasphemy:

Ernesto "Che" Guevara was executed 40 years ago this week, and the impulse to honor him is bursting out all over.

Celebrations are taking place in such places as Cuba, Bolivia and Ireland, a priest has called him a saint, and hosts of other people are likewise instructing us on what a hero he was, what a moral giant, what a fierce combatant for justice in an imperialist-threatened, inhumane world.

Not to interrupt the hallucinatory hosannas or anything, but it seems worth mentioning that there is another side to this story, the one that says Che was in fact a murderous, evil, obsessed thug who stands convicted of his vicious ideological fanaticism and cruelties by his own words as well as by his damnable deeds.

Read it all. (h/t RCP)

One paragraph makes me laugh, not because it's funny but because it further exposes the hypocrisy of the neo-retro-psuedo-Marxists that get their panties in a wad over our military's detainment of terrorist scum in Guantanamo:

Following the Castro takeover of Cuba in 1959, Che ran a Havana prison in which he killed, killed and then killed some more, and later helped start the labor camp system in which homosexuals and others considered undesirable were to be confined as nothing more than slaves.

Yeah, maybe. But at least he didn't desecrate any Korans, right?

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 12:41 PM

Taxing Our Way To A Cooler Planet

No matter what the crisis - and no matter whether the crisis is real or imagined - the answer from the Democratic Party Playbook is always the same.

1. Raise Taxes.
2. Repeat Step 1.
   

And right on schedule, Step 1 is here:

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Dingell said he's not sure what the final climate package will include when the House takes it up for a vote. The taxes measures he's proposing, in fact, will be taken up by another House committee. And the Senate is considering a market-based system that would set an economy-wide ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be allowed to be released.

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

- A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

- A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

- Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

It's only fair, see? I'm just a little fuzzy in my understanding of how wholesale wealth redistribution will lower the average global temperature. Will a Social Security bailout fix the ozone hole, cure AIDS, save the whales, and promote world peace too? I guess the details will be filled in later; but for now, just pay up.

Anyway, here's how it will work out: Taxes will get raised and our economy will tank. This is OK, it can be blamed on Bush. Then after a few years, either the average global temperature will increase, or it will decrease.

• If the temperature increases, it will prove that we haven't raised taxes enough, leaving our government overlords no choice but to take more of our earnings. Proceed to Step 2.
  
  
• If the temperature decreases, it will prove that raising taxes really does work and more taxes will be required to cool the planet even faster. Proceed to Step 2.

But not to worry. As always, these taxes will be targeted at the "rich" (i.e., you and me), and will not affect "working Americans" (i.e., people who don't actually, you know... work).

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 9:12 AM

When Bad Math Meets Bad Science

Another Great Moment in Scientific Consensus (emphasis mine):

LONDON (Reuters) - Almost two-thirds of the world's people say there must be urgent action to tackle global warming, a poll for the BBC World Service showed on Tuesday.

Overall, 65 percent of the 22,000 people polled in 21 countries said there was a need "to take major steps very soon" ranging from 91 percent in Spain to 37 percent in India.

My math may be a bit off (I was educated by the American public school system, after all), but if "65% of 22,000 people" equals "almost two-thirds of the world's people", that would make the planet Earth's total population... um... 22,000 people? Well, I suppose the overpopulation alarmists will be happy with that news, at least.

The Reuters "news" report didn't mention the scientific background of those polled, but I'm sure on a planet inhabited by 22,000 people at least one of them is a climatologist, possibly named Al...

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 1:27 PM

Breaking News: Astronauts Drink Alcohol!!!

We are shocked - shocked! - to learn that NASA shuttle astronauts regularly consume adult beverages shortly prior to perching themselves upon large quantities of high explosives in order to be shot into low Earth orbit so they can perform their custodial duties on the flying shitcan often referred to as the International* Space Station. And instead of offering to pay for their bar tab, I suspect the bureaucrat desk-pilots at NASA, along with their stooge enablers in Congress, will find some way of punishing them. Gus Grissom is surely spinning in his grave.

Now, anyone who has read "The Right Stuff" will understand that alcohol and astronauts are so close together in the dictionary that their definitions might as well be combined, and that this tradition predates the space race, going back to the test pilots who strapped themselves into prototype aircraft often to return in body bags, "burnt beyond recognition" as Tom Wolfe would frequently remind us. This was a dangerous job and those who did it lived fast and partied hard; it was understood by everyone that girly-men need not apply. These men were once celebrated and idolized by society, and whole issues of Life Magazine were devoted to them; now they are called Neanderthals.

Part of the problem is due to the Pussification Of The Western Male, and of American Society itself. Astronauts aren't larger-than-life heroes anymore, manly men who risk their manly lives to push the outer boundaries of human exploration. No, they're janitors now (see Greg Klerxx, "Lost In Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age"); in fact, some of them are even psycho-bitches and (worse still) Canadians. I suspect this makes some people feel good about themselves, knowing that our astronauts are every bit as fucked up and culturally diverse as the rest of us. But in our pussified nanny-state, we can't allow astronauts to drink - drunk men are bad, they frequently chase women and make fun of effeminate men. I'll bet sometimes they smoke while they drink! It's even been rumored that, when not risking their lives in rocket ships, some astronauts have in the past resorted to driving sports cars. Fast. This must be stopped before someone is offended.

Personally, I don't even consider the latest batch of Shuttle passengers to be "astronauts" - that word should be reserved for pilots who have large, hairy balls and a willingness to put them on the line to do something meaningful, such as landing on Mars. I'll give due credit to the actual pilots who de-orbit and land the flying schoolbus, but the rest of them are little more than zero-G airline passengers. And we still serve airline passengers in-flight drinks, don't we?

Nevertheless, what they do is risky - whether they are pilots or passengers - and they deserve to be cut some slack. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone getting within a quarter-mile of the Shuttle launch pad while sober. But there will be no slack forthcoming. I predict the witch hunt will begin presently; politicians will fall over each other in the mad scramble to get in front of the cameras to denounce this abhorrent behavior, castigate the guilty parties for abdicating their role-model duty to our children (as if kids these days give a shit about space janitors), and somehow find a way to blame it all on George Bush.

In the end, some bureaucrats will get fired, some astronauts will be grounded, and new regulations will be devised to mandate a kinder, gentler astronaut corp. NASA may even undergo a complete reorganization with a new, idiotic mission and purpose for being: to stop global warming, perhaps; or maybe to do something more important, like developing technology needed to increase tampon absorbency in zero gravity.

And in a few years, we'll turn on the news to learn that the Chinese have launched a manned mission to Mars... after a long night of hard partying.

R.I.P. NASA.

* The International Space Station is "International" only in the sense that, while the American taxpayer foots most of the bill for it, other countries get to share in the credit. When things go right, that is; otherwise it's America's fault.

Update 8/3: Krauthammer concurs.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 11:03 AM

The Global Warming Reader - Pt. I: The Hysteria

Global Warming causes terrorism, suicide, nightmares, genocide... and probably male pattern baldness, too. I think it also had something to do with the Red Sox winning the '04 World Series.

Terrorism Linked to Global Warming
About.com: According to a report by the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired general officers from all branches of the U.S. military, there is a clear link between climate change and terrorism. (June 12, 2007)

Global warming possibly linked to an enhanced risk of suicide
Department of Psychology, University of Cagliari, Italy: The global increase in surface temperature (known as global warming) was found to impact on mortality through ill health, particularly among the elderly and in summer. This study sets out to explore the impact of global warming on suicide mortality, using data from Italy.

Global warming worries keeps children awake at night
GMTV: Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today. A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change. (Mar 19, 2007)

Climate change behind Darfur killing
Breitbart: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon. (Jun 16, 2007)

Worms are killing the planet, says top researcher
Materials Recycling Week: "Everybody loves them because they think they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming." (Jun 21, 2007)

Tourists cause global warming
News24: "Tourism is unfortunately one of the vectors of (climate) change at the moment and contributes, through its excesses, to the process of global warming," World Tourism Organisation (WTO) director general Francesco Frangialli told an international conference on meteorology in Madrid this week. (Mar 22. 2007)

Humans blamed for climate change
BBC: Climatic change is "very likely" down to human activities, the global body on climate science will say. (Feb 2, 2007)

France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax
President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012. He warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. (Feb 1, 2007)

Gore says Bush administration paying scientists to dispute global warming
CNN: "They've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere," Gore said in a short interview. "The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say." (Feb 6, 2007)

RFK Jr. rips President Bush for environmental policy
Roanoke.com: The crowd that nearly filled Virginia Tech's 3,000-seat Burruss Hall Auditorium to hear environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speak probably had an idea about what he thought of the Bush administration before he took the podium. "You can't talk honestly about the environment today ... without being critical of the president," he said. The university paid $20,000 for his visit. (Feb 27, 2007)

Dangerous denial
Frontline Magazine (India): If all the people of the world had the same living style as the average American, the holocaust would have already visited us. (Feb 24, 2007)

Global Warming: now it hits brothels
Metro.co.uk: Things Al Gore didn't tell you - global warming is harming Bulgaria's sex trade, according to brothel owners. (Mar 6, 2007)

Climate change blamed for cockroach migration
ABC (Australia): Climate change is being blamed for a changing of the guard among Sydneys cockroach population. (Mar 14, 2007)

Climate scientist sees cover-up
Washington Times: A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years. (Mar 20, 2007)

Gore Implores Congress to Save Planet
AP: - Al Gore, who has reversed his political fortunes to become a potential contender in the 2008 presidential race, made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday in an appeal for an even more dramatic rescue - saving the planet. (Mar 21, 2007)

Global Warming Making Hurricanes Stronger
LiveScience: Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious? New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists call the findings both surprising and "alarming'' because they suggest global warming is influencing storms now -- rather than in the distant future. (Jul 31, 2005)

Global warming may spur wind shear, sap hurricanes
Reuters: Global warming could increase a climate phenomenon known as wind shear that inhibits Atlantic hurricanes, a potentially positive result of climate change, according to new research released on Tuesday. (Apr 17, 2007)

Pending doom: Global warming crisis
Portland Press Herald: A group of fourth-graders in Portland creates a list of priorities to stop global warming. "Our school study of global warming started with lots of questions. What is global warming? What is happening now? What might happen in the future? What can each of us do tohelp? Why should we care? What will the future look like? A small group of students at our school has been researching and studying the effects of global warming. The evidence and data we collected is so overwhelming that we have decided to write about this issue. " (Jun 14, 2007)

The Earth today stands in imminent peril
The Independent (UK) Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States have issued what amounts to an unambiguous warning to the world: civilisation itself is threatened by global warming. (Jul 1, 2007)

U.S. leg of Live Earth hits key notes
Newsday: It was nonmusicians at this concert who made the most passionate pleas about demanding action for the environment. "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." (Jul 1, 2007)

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 12:42 PM

The Global Warming Reader - Pt. II: The Hypocrites

Do as I say... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Al Gore - Profit of Doom
BillHobb.com: Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy - burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' money in. (Feb 28, 2007)

How Gore's massive energy consumption saves the world
Mark Steyn: Stop me if you've heard this before, but the other day the Rev. Al Gore declared that "climate change" was "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.'' Ever. I believe that was the same day it was revealed that George W. Bush's ranch in Texas is more environmentally friendly than the Gore mansion in Tennessee. According to the Nashville Electric Service, the Eco-Messiah's house uses 20 times more electricity than the average American home. The average household consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours. In 2006, the Gores wolfed down nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours. Two hundred twenty-one thousand kilowatt-hours? What's he doing in there? Clamping Tipper to the electrodes and zapping her across the rec room every night? No, no, don't worry. Al's massive energy consumption is due entirely to his concern about the way we're depleting the Earth's resources. When I say "we," I don't mean Al, of course. I mean you -- yes, you, Earl Schlub, in the basement apartment at 29 Elm St. You're irresponsibly depleting the Earth's resources by using that electric washer when you could be down by the river with the native women beating your loin cloth dry on the rock while singing traditional village work chants all morning long. But up at the Gore mansion -- the Nashville Electric Service's own personal gold mine, the shining Cathedral of St. Al, Tennessee's very own Palace of Versal -- the Reverend Al is being far more environmentally responsible. As his spokesperson attempted to argue, his high energy usage derives from his brave calls for low energy usage. He's burning up all that electricity by sending out faxes every couple of minutes urging you to use less electricity. (Mar 4, 2007)

Krauthammer: Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy
Charles Krauthammer: Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was "Ride mass transit." This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10. (Mar 16, 2007)

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming
His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway. (Mar 30, 2007)

Live Aid is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on?
Daily Mail: A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army. The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher. (July 7, 2007)

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 12:42 PM

The Global Warming Reader - Pt. III: The Debunking

The debate is over. If you ignore those who disagree, I mean.

Climate Change: The Deniers (Series)
The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video)
YouTube: The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming. The film showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Publicity for the programme states that global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times.

Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Petition To Ban Water (Video)
YouTube: Dihydrogen Monoxide is in our bodies, in our reservoirs, in our food... it's everywhere! Government needs to do something!!!.

Interview: Dr. S. Fred Singer
Nova/Frontline: He is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most.

Kyoto accord protest quickening
Washington Times - S. Fred Singer: Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. (Apr 22, 1998)

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher
ScienceDaily: Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher. (Jun 15, 2001)

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Daily Telegraph: For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). (Sep 4, 2006)

Global Warming Bombshell
MIT Technology Review - Richard Muller: Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place. In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue. But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. (Oct 15, 2004)

The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts
JunkScience.com: Given the number of JunkScience.com readers expressing some confusion over the "greenhouse effect," carbon dioxide, global warming and climate change, we thought it might be a good idea to pull together a page of questions-and-answers, complete with a few nice little graphics explaining the facts. We thought that since there is long-standing, intense public interest in these topics and that vast sums of public and private monies are being thrown at the much-dreaded "problem" of "global warming," there should be a wealth of quality explanations and graphics to which we can point readers to alleviate their confusion. That was about the time that our quick project and quiet weekend went awry very quickly. Who would have thought so many "issue" sites, environment sites and, yes, government sites, could be hosting so much utter garbage on a topic subject to such intense scrutiny? Who could have imagined having to spend several hours wading through searches to find a few simple graphics correctly expressing the greenhouse effect? Who knew that so many blowhards are out there pontificating from complete ignorance? Some of the bad descriptions appear to be poor efforts at simplifying the material to suit grade school course work and the like, but that does not make them any more acceptable. Obviously a slight rethink of this project was necessary. We will now try to deliver an extremely simplified version of how this greenhouse thing actually works and some indication of what might be expected from what is known about the Earth and what has been measured, rather than simply guessed about. (Apr 21, 2006)

Scientists respond to Gore's Warnings of Climate Catastrophe
Canadian Free Press: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." (Jun 12, 2006)

Questions for Al Gore
Patriot Post: "As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie..." (May 25, 2006)

The Gods Are Laughing
National Post: Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." While the gods must consider An Inconvenient Truth the ultimate comedy, real climate scientists are crying over Al Gore's new film. (Jun 7, 2006)

Don't Believe the Hype
Opinion Journal: Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming. (Jul 2, 2006)

A Convenient Lie
RealClearPolitics - John Stossel: When he was in college, atmospheric-science professor John Christy was told, "it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy." That prediction has gone the way of so many others. But environmentalists continue to warn us that we face environmental disaster if we don't accept the economic disaster called the Kyoto treaty. Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) explain: "Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas." And Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," depicts a future in which cities are submerged by rising sea levels. Wow. But many scientists laugh at the panic. Christy says, "Doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines but have proven to be completely false. Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar." But the media can't get enough of doomsday. (July 5, 2006)

Get Your Priorities Right Opinion Journal: A rationalist crusader does the math on global warming. (Jul 8, 2006)

Global warming boost to glaciers
BBC: Global warming could be causing some glaciers to grow, a new study claims. (Aug 24, 2006)

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
Monte and Harrison Hieb: Earth's climate has been warming since the most recent in a series of Ice Ages ended 18,000 years ago (Aug 28, 2006)

Climate Non-Conformity
Opinion Journal: Saving lives versus saving planet Earth. (Nov 2, 2006)

Hurricane Predictions Off Track As Tranquil Season Wafts Away
Tampa Bay Online: With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade. (Nov 27, 2006)

A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: The color glossy 68 page booklet -- previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore. (Dec 8, 2006)

Days of Sunshine
John L. Daly: While there may have been some warming this century, it is unlikely to be as much as the half degree claimed. However, for the purposes of this discussion, it will be assumed there has been some global warming over the last 120 years, by an amount up to +0.5 deg.C, even though +0.25 deg.C would be a more realistic figure. Given that assumption, the question then arises as to what caused it. Was it just natural variation? Was mankind to blame due to greenhouse gases? Or, was it the primary engine of our warmth - the Sun?

Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Bjorn Lomberg: Cinemas everywhere will soon be showing former US Vice President Al Gore's film on global warming. "An Inconvenient Truth" has received rave reviews in America and Europe, and it will most likely gain a large worldwide audience. But, while the film is full of emotion and provocative images, it is short on rational arguments. (Jan 2007)

'Scientist' Group's Funding Comes with Liberal 'Strings Attached'
CNS News: At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices. The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives. (Jan 23, 2007)

Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag
Philadelphia Magazine: Penn professor Bob Giegengack has a few quibbles with the former VP on this whole global warming thing. For decades, Giegengack was content to be a relatively obscure geologist who taught more than he published. Recently, though, he's stepped into the swirling tempest surrounding global warming, in part because he says it's not even one of the top 10 environmental problems we face. To make that point, he occasionally joins in a panel discussion, or gives a quote to a science writer. He's thinking about writing something for one of the smarty-pants magazines. "I've always been interested in this question," he says, "but when I first started working, no one cared -- you couldn't get an article published if you wanted to." Now, though, "The public appetite for all this crap seems to be insatiable." (Feb 2007)

The real deal?
National Post: All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Nir Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist." (Feb 2, 2007)

I vote for global warming
Jack Kelly: As evidence mounts that it is the sun and not man that is responsible for global warming, the alarmists grow more strident and try to stifle debate. (Feb 4, 2007)

What's so hot about fickle science?
Mark Steyn: From the "Environmental News Network": "Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations. "The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid." And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about." (Feb 5, 2007)

Climate of Opinion
Opinion Journal: While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences. We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use. The economic dislocations of such an abrupt policy change could be far more severe than warming itself, especially if it reduces the growth and innovation that would help the world cope with, say, rising sea levels. There are also other problems--AIDS, malaria and clean drinking water, for example--whose claims on scarce resources are at least as urgent as climate change. (Feb 5, 2007)

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Canada Free Press - Timothy Ball: Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. (Feb 5, 2007)

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff
KGW.com: In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change. Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist. His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. (Feb 8, 2007)

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
Daily Telegraph: Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought. (Feb 11, 2007)

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
The Times (UK): When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains "very likely" as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain's top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. (Feb 11, 2007)

Inconvenient Kyoto Truths
Newsweek - George Will: Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? (Feb 12, 2007)

Plus Ça (Climate) Change
Opinion Journal - Pet Du Pont: When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive. Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age. During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001. (Feb 21, 2007)

Inconvenient Truths: Novel science fiction on global warming
National Review - Patrick J. Michaels: When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it's not just Gore's movie that's fiction. It's the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too. (Feb 23, 2007)

Greenhouse sceptics to congregate
TheAge.com.au: Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States... It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth. (Feb 28, 2007)

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
National Geographic: Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural -- and not a human-induced -- cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. (Feb 28, 2007)

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
LifeStyleExtra (UK): Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. (Mar 4, 2007)

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
Daily Telegraph: Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study. A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment. (Mar 9, 2007)

Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
ABC News: From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness. In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways. (Mar 9, 2007)

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
ScienceDaily: Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada. (Mar 18, 2007)

Czech leader Klaus fights global warming 'religion'
Reuters: Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a a 'religion' that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms. (Mar 21, 2007)

What Al Gore Really Wants
Real Clear Politics - Robert Tracinski: Al Gore made his triumphant return to Washington on Wednesday to give testimony before Democrat-controlled committees in the House and Senate. He returned, not as a failed presidential candidate, but as an environmentalist prophet. As Senator Barbara Boxer gushed, "You have acted for us. You have acted more than anyone else." Gore's transformation is remarkable. The stilted, insincere candidate from the 2000 election campaign is gone. The new Gore believes in global warming the way the pope believes in Catholicism--indeed, possibly more so--and he comes across as sincere and impassioned. While the sincerity may be doubtful (as we shall see below) the passion is definitely real. But what is it a passion for? (Mar 23, 2007)

Gore's Faith Is Bad Science
Real Clear Politics - Michael Barone: Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more. He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works. Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future. To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun. (Mar 26, 2007)

Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition
Real Clear Politics - William F. Buckley: Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications. It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility for them. (Apr 3, 2007)

A CEO With A Spine
The New York Sun: The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming." (Apr 3, 2007)

Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Real Clear Politics - Robert Tracinski: One of the most appalling recent trends is the way in which certain media outlets, such as the New York Times, have begun referring to carbon dioxide--one of the basic constituents of the atmosphere and a substance we all constantly exhale--as a "pollutant." By that standard, everything is a pollutant. And that is, in fact, precisely the view that has now been endorsed by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court. In Monday's ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (available in PDF format here), the court held that the EPA is obliged to treat every substance on earth as a pollutant to be regulated, unless it can demonstrate why that substance is not a pollutant. (Apr 5, 2007)

Global Warming To Wipe Out All Life On Earth Within 20 Years; Women, Minorities Hardest Hit
Ace of Spades: I like this quote especially: "There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. 'For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models,' Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters." So, let me get this straight: For the past ten or fifteen years, you were "just arm-waving with models," right? (Apr 6, 2007)

Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
AP: A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming. "He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech. (Apr 7, 2007)

Media Bias: How It Works
Power Line: The Associated Press, like nearly all mainstream media outlets, runs interference for the global warming hysterics by misrepresenting the nature of the debate, misrepresenting the positions of those who oppose the hysteria, and subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) suggesting that all who question the anthropogenic global warming theorists can safely be dismissed as cranks. (Apr 7, 2007)

There's No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
Newsweek - Richard S. Lindzen: Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators -- and many scientists -- seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature -- a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature-wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. (Apr 16, 2007)

Scientist: Warming not caused by humans
The Huntsville Times: Roy Spencer is speaking up about his belief that Earth is not headed toward a global warming disaster. Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former NASA scientist, said he knows he's in the minority with his opinions, but he doesn't believe manmade influences are causing catastrophic climate changes. (Apr 19, 2007)

Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards
Real Clear Politics - John Stossel: If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback. (Apr 25, 2007)

Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers
Science Daily: During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. Cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice versa. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Apr 30, 2007)

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: ollowing the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. (May 15, 2007)

Global warming debunked
The Timaru Herald (NZ): Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week. Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained. "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said. A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it. (May 19, 2007)

Top NASA Official Doubts Global Warming
ABC News: NASA administrator Michael Griffin continues to draw the ire of preeminent climate scientists inside and outside of NASA, as well as members of Congress, after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming. (Jun 1, 2007)

Helping along global warming
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly. (Jun 17, 2007)

High price for load of hot air
The Courier-Mail (Australia): There is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming. For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from. (Jun 18, 2007)

Global warming: truth or propaganda?
Financial Times: Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, argues that ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom and democracy. (Jun 21, 2007)

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
Chicago Sun-Times - James M. Taylor: In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse. If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming. A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position. (Jun 30, 2007)

The real cure for global warming
Las Vegas Review-Journal - Vin Suprynowicz: There are some who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the Earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar, the polar ice caps melt, rising sea levels flood our coastal cities -- general devastation on the biblical model -- all because we insist on driving petroleum-fueled private automobiles and using electricity generated by burning coal. Burning that stuff releases into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide, you see, a "greenhouse gas" that contributes to the ongoing warming of the planet. Now, this is almost entirely fantastic nonsense. The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a century, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years. This is caused not primarily by CO2 levels -- changes in atmospheric CO2 loading actually trail temperature shifts by decades or even centuries -- but rather by fluctuating solar activity. Even if CO2 were a factor, most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from volcanoes and the natural processes of the oceans, not from man-made sources. Since wiping out mankind would have a minimal impact on climate, what good do you think a few rich folk switching to "hybrids" will do? If warming continues at the present rate, the most significant impact is likely to be a small increase in the amount of previously frozen ground on which people could grow wheat. (Jul 1, 2007)

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 12:40 PM

The Global Warming Reader - Pt. IV: The Purge

If you can't beat 'em, silence 'em. Hey, it worked with Galileo, right? And besides, all religions - even moonbat cults like the Church of Global Warming - can benefit from a good inquisition and subsequent excommunication of heretics.

Sir David King's Queenie Fit
National Review Online: The scene was a scientific workshop set up to discuss the science of global warming. It took place in a non-Western country and was convened by the country's Academy of Sciences. Delegates came from all over the world. Yet the delegation from one major Western power behaved in a most undiplomatic fashion. The way the science was being presented was inconvenient to their political agenda, so they tried to get the scientists they disagreed with silenced. (Jul 23, 2004)

Climate of Fear
Opinion Journal: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. (Apr. 12, 2006)

"I don't like the word 'Balance'"- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore declared "I don't like the word 'balance' much at all" in global warming coverage at a journalism conference in Vermont over the weekend. Blakemore, who reported on August 30, 2006, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate" on global warming, said he rejects 'balance' in order to justify excluding any skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming from his reporting. (Oct 30, 2006)

Con job at The Weather Channel
WorldNetDaily: Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism. (Jan 5, 2007)

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists. (Jan 17, 2007)

"The Weather Channel" Mess
James Spann: "I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." (Jan 18, 2007)

Del. global warming skeptic stands pat
Delaware Online: Delaware's state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change -- in one case directly contradicting the state's own policy. (Feb 1, 2007)

The First Church of Fundamentalist Climate Change
Big Lizards: It evidently matters little how well qualified a meteorologist or climatologist is, or what relevant academic position he holds, or how much original scientific research he has done, or how many papers he has published, or how many other climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric scientists cite those papers: If he comes to a conclusion different from that dictated by the IPCC via the AMS -- then he should be disbarred, or whatever the heck the world society of climate luminaries, sages, and soothsayers call it when they summon a climatologist into a circle to publicly rip off his epaulets. (Feb 2, 2007)

Minner directs Legates not to use his title when speaking on climate change
DelMarVA.com Daily Times: Gov. Ruth Ann Minner has directed Delaware's state climatologist to stop using his title in public statements on climate change, citing a clash of views on global warming and confusion over the position's ties to the administration. "Your views on climate change, as I understand them, are not aligned with those of my administration," Minner wrote. (Feb 23, 2007)

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
Daily Telegraph: Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community. They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions. (Mar 11, 2007)

Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard
Reuters: Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble getting funding and academic posts unless they conform to an "alarmist scenario," said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures. (Apr 18, 2007)

Film on Global Warming Is Challenged
AP: A group of British climate scientists is demanding changes to a skeptical documentary about global warming, saying there are grave errors in the program billed as a response to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. "This is a contemptible, weasel-worded attempt to gag scientific criticism, and it won't work," director Mark Durkin said. "I don't believe they're interested in quality control when it comes to the reporting of science -- so long as it's on their side." (Apr 25, 2007)

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 9:37 AM

Are you a Complete Fucking Idiot?

Take this easy test and find out!

1. Do you frequently see a queue of cars in your rearview mirror, but no cars at all in your windshield? If you answered "yes" there is a high probability that you are a Complete Fucking Idiot.

2. Do you find it necessary to hit your brake pedal while driving on highways when there is no traffic ahead of you? If "yes" you should see an optometrist at once and get your eyes checked. And, you are a Complete Fucking Idiot. Make that a double if you do it while going uphill.

3. Do you courteously dim you high beams when you see an oncoming vehicle, only to flip them back on when you're about 20 feet in front of them because you just can't wait until you pass them? Thanks, fuckwit. Now I need to see an optometrist to get my eyes checked.

4. If you see a sign that say "Speed Limit 40 MPH", do you drive 40 kilometers per hour? If "yes" you are probably European or (worse still) Canadian, which automatically makes you a Complete Fucking Idiot.

5. Do you tailgate other vehicles even though they are driving as fast as the vehicle directly in front of them and really have no place to go to get out of your way? C'mon, admit it. And guess what? You are a Complete Fucking Idiot.

6. Do you stop to admire those pretty green lights often found at intersections? Yes? Well, you, too, are a Complete Fucking Idiot.

7. Do you come to a complete stop before turning into an unobstructed driveway, parking lot, or side street? You are indeed a Complete Fucking Idiot.

8. Do you drive a Hummer? Need I say more?

9. Do you drive a crappy Jap car bought for you by your rich but otherwise unfit and inattentive parents, with a bunch of plastic poseur parts bolted onto it and a fat tailpipe inversely proportional to the size of your puny cock, and enjoy proving your superior driving ability by darting across three lanes and back again to advance one whole car length, causing everyone behind you to hit their brakes to avoid rear ending your stupid ass? Congratulations! You are Fast and Furious. And a Complete Fucking Idiot.

10. Do you possess both a driver's license and a cell phone? If yes, there's about a 50/50 chance you are a Complete Fucking Idiot. The odds increase if you drive an SUV.

11. Do you drive a Volvo and refuse to remove that stupid Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker? You are a Liberal. Same difference. Please stay the hell out of the fast lane.

If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, please show mercy on the rest of us and take the fucking bus.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 8:51 PM

Pro-Choice, Diversity, and Other Liberal Myths

Only in the bizarro world of American Liberalism does one's ability to tune into any of a billion different sources for information and opinion become a threat to democracy. Of course, Liberals speak of "democracy" in the same way as the Peoples "Democratic" Republic of North Korea, where every citizen is perfectly free to choose any government-controlled news source they wish. But I digress...

A brilliant article by Adam D. Thierer (h/t: RCP):

Throughout most of history, humans lived in a state of extreme information poverty. News traveled slowly, field to field, village to village. Even with the printing press's advent, information spread at a snail's pace. Few knew how to find printed materials, assuming that they even knew how to read. Today, by contrast, we live in a world of unprecedented media abundance that once would have been the stuff of science-fiction novels. We can increasingly obtain and consume whatever media we want, wherever and whenever we want: television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the bewildering variety of material available on the Internet.

This media cornucopia is a wonderful development for a free society—or so you'd think. But today's media universe has fierce detractors, and nowhere more vehemently than on the left. Their criticisms seem contradictory. Some, such as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, contend that real media choices, information sources included, remain scarce, hindering citizens from fully participating in a deliberative democracy. Others argue that we have too many media choices, making it hard to share common thoughts or feelings; democracy, community itself, again loses out. Both liberal views get the story disastrously wrong. If either prevails, what's shaping up to be America's Golden Age of media could be over soon.

...

What unifies the two schools of leftist media criticism, beneath their apparent opposition, is pure elitism. Media abundance (which the scarcity critics must implausibly wave away as a mirage) has meant more room for right-of-center viewpoints that, while popular with many Americans, the critics find completely unacceptable. The fact that Bill O'Reilly gets better ratings than Bill Moyers perturbs them to no end. It’s just not fair!

Both liberal groups would love to put their thumbs on the scale and tilt the media in their preferred direction. Scarcity-obsessed Dennis Kucinich has recently introduced plans in Congress to revive the Fairness Doctrine, which once let government regulators police the airwaves to ensure a balancing of viewpoints, however that's defined. A new Fairness Doctrine would affect most directly opinion-based talk radio, a medium that just happens to be dominated by conservatives. If a station wanted to run William Bennett's show under such a regime, they might now have to broadcast a left-wing alternative, too, even if it had poor ratings, which generally has been the case with liberal talk. Sunstein also proposes a kind of speech redistributionism. For the Internet, he suggests that regulators could impose "electronic sidewalks" on partisan websites (the National Rifle Association's, say), forcing them to link to opposing views. The practical problems of implementing this program would be forbidding, even if it somehow proved constitutional. How many links to opposing views would secure the government's approval? The FCC would need an army of media regulators (much as China has today) to monitor the millions of webpages, blogs, and social-networking sites and keep them in line.

That leftist media critics start sounding so authoritarian is no surprise. In a media cornucopia, freedom of choice inevitably yields media inequality. "In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome," writes Clay Shirky of New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program. Overcoming that inequality would require a completely regulated media.

When Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than NPR, or Tom Clancy sells more books than Noam Chomsky, or Motor Trend gets more subscribers than Mother Jones, liberals want to convince us (or themselves, perhaps) that it’s all because of some catastrophic market failure or a grand corporate conspiracy to dumb down the masses. In reality, it's just the result of consumer choice. All the opinions that the Left's media critics favor are now readily available to us via multiple platforms. But that's not good enough, it seems: they won’t rest until all of us are watching, reading, and listening to the content that they prefer.

Remember: when Al Sharpton says, "Don Imus is only the beginning," he's not joking.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 11:09 AM

The Debate Is Over (Update)

Via The Ryskind Sketchbook (h/t Powerline)

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 10:08 PM

Global Warming Update

"The debate is over," proclaims the world's preeminent and most respected climatologist. The Earth is on it's way to a fast boil, and it's all because of humans - specifically, American Republican humans. However, ever the skeptic, I've decided to do a little experiment to see whether all the global warming histrionics and alarmism is warranted. Enter Snowman.


Snowman was created during the latest clear indication of global warming: the Great March Blizzard of 2007. He will be my monitor of climate change over the next few months. If he melts by July, that will be incontrovertible evidence of apocalyptic global warming. I shall then pledge to buy a Prius, cut down all of the trees on my property to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and use all of my discretionary income to buy carbon offset credits.

Labels: Commentary, Global Warm-Mongering

posted by Paul @ 11:19 AM

The End Of The World The War Is Coming!!!

Today's spew from Madame Hillary:

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Doesn't a war normally end when both sides agree that it's over? Maybe I missed the news report in which the Jihadists agreed to stop killing infidels once the US surrenders.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 10:01 AM

Hillary for Politburo General Secretary

Today's spew from Madame Hillary:

"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternative and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence."

Let's see if I got this straight: A legal company selling a legal product earns legal profits for their legal shareholders, and instead of offering them their due congratulations they plan to "take" their profits for the government to dispose of as they see fit. To each according to their means, right?

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, we must haul the CEOs up in front of yet another Congressional committee, Kangaroo Court-style, and have them sit there silently while our duly elected blowhards take their turn in front of the cameras, posturing and castigating people who actually work for a living, decrying their unashamed audacity to be successful. Behold the price of success in America: To be demonized by the same government that rewards the failure of the airline industry with a $15 billion dollar bailout, while punishing those who achieve.

Memo to Hillary and the rest of her Socialist ilk: Fuck You. Earn your own.

Afterthought: According to the news report of Exxon's recent "record profit", they earned $39.5 billion profit on $377.64 billion revenue. For those of us who are able to do the math, that's less than 10.5% profit margin. Ask your boss if he could stay in business if his profit margin was 10.5%; mine simply laughed.

Update 02/04: What he said.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 2:51 PM

The Friendly Skies

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 11:12 PM

Piss Be Upon Him

I believe it's time once again for a First Amendment Interlude.


That is all. Thank you.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 2:04 PM

Dean on Divisiveness

Saw this gem today on Drudge: My favorite comedian flaps his gums again. Give this man a megaphone:


As Democratic Party leader, Dean of course knows all about anti-semites. And Stalinists... aren't they the sort of folks who kick down doors in the middle of the night and drag away family members at gunpoint?

Keep talking, Howard.

Labels: Commentary

posted by Paul @ 1:38 PM