"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison
Al Gore (aka The Goracle) uses more energy per month to power his home than the average homeowner uses in a year. He's stammering to come up with a good excuse for what rightfully looks like hypocrisy, since he's Mr. "reduce your carbon footprint".
One thing that Global Warming hysteria provides is a convenient way for those who still haven't figured out that socialism doesn't work to weasel their way toward more government control over the evil capitalists by using junk science and alarmism.
If the end result of this latest environmental craze is that we power our world in a cleaner and more efficient manner, that's fantastic. But I'm afraid it will cause knee-jerk decisions by well-meaning politicians, which only manage to spread more misery via unnecessary and detrimental controls on the economy.
We'll see.......
Here are a couple of great posts on the issue:
Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame
Questions for Al Gore
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Allies.....
There's a great post by Bret Stevens in the WSJ online. An excerpt:
On Oct. 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took the unprecedented step of formally invoking Article 5 of its 1949 Charter, which says that "an armed attack against one or more of them. . . . shall be considered an attack against all of them." Lord Geoffrey Robertson, then NATO's secretary-general, gave a press conference saying he wanted to "reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism."
In recent weeks, we've been reminded once again just how cheap those promises were. On Thursday, Stéphane Dion, who leads Canada's Liberal Party, announced that as prime minister he would bring an end to the country's 2,500-strong military commitment to southern Afghanistan. "Neither Canada, NATO nor the Americans anticipated how violent and dangerous Kandahar would become in 2006," he said, adding that the proper role for Canadian forces is "to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people."
Read the whole thing.
On Oct. 2, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization took the unprecedented step of formally invoking Article 5 of its 1949 Charter, which says that "an armed attack against one or more of them. . . . shall be considered an attack against all of them." Lord Geoffrey Robertson, then NATO's secretary-general, gave a press conference saying he wanted to "reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism."
In recent weeks, we've been reminded once again just how cheap those promises were. On Thursday, Stéphane Dion, who leads Canada's Liberal Party, announced that as prime minister he would bring an end to the country's 2,500-strong military commitment to southern Afghanistan. "Neither Canada, NATO nor the Americans anticipated how violent and dangerous Kandahar would become in 2006," he said, adding that the proper role for Canadian forces is "to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people."
Read the whole thing.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Good News for Those of Us Who Travel from Switzerland
I've been sorting out our flights home (Chicago) for next July and everything is terribly expensive and requires connections, adding to the length of the trip. However, help might be on the way thanks to knee-jerk "green" rules in the EU.
Lufthansa threatens to move hub operations to Zurich to evade EU green plan
Lufthansa threatens to move hub operations to Zurich to evade EU green plan
Strange Bedfellows
David Thompson takes a look at the bizarre tendency for the Guardian to sanitize radical islamic views:
al-Guardian & the Brotherhood
(hat tip: LGF)
al-Guardian & the Brotherhood
(hat tip: LGF)
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Enlightenment fundamentalism or racism of the anti-racists?
Pascal Bruckner blasts multiculturalism back to the stone age in a devastating essay (français / English).
(Hat tip: No Pasaran)
(Hat tip: No Pasaran)
The Inconvenient Truth
There's a great piece up at Townhall by Suzanne Fields. Here's an excerpt:
All this could be great fun if it weren't so dangerous. Winston Churchill, after all, once observed that he liked pigs because "a dog looks up to you, a cat looks down on you, but a pig accepts you as an equal." But when politics, fashion and entertainment fuse with scientific "factoids," truth drowns in a flood of misinformation. In his new book, "Eco-Freaks," John Berlau, a policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank devoted to environmental policies, catalogs the tragic mistakes imposed on the rest of us by the environmentally correct. After Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," DDT was banned nearly everywhere. Most of her "evidence" later turned out to be all wrong, but 2 million poor Africans die every year of malaria that DDT was on the way to eradicating. Al Gore, of course, blames global warming.
Asbestos, like DDT, gets a bad rap in the popular media, but nothing else comes close as a shield against heat. The original plans for the World Trade Center called for the interior steel in both towers to be covered with asbestos-based fireproofing material. Asbestos was eliminated when environmentalists objected. Engineers think the twin towers might be standing today but for the politically correct construction. Asbestos would have at least slowed the spread of the fire and the melting of the metal, giving hundreds of those who perished a chance to escape.
Hurricane Katrina need not have been the tragedy it was. In 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to build large steel and concrete "sea gates" below sea level to prevent hurricane force winds driving storm surges into Lake Pontchartrain, overflowing into low-lying New Orleans. Such gates have been enormously successful in the Netherlands. But the Environmental Defense Fund, which had been a party to the lawsuit leading to the banning of DDT, persuaded a judge that the sea gates would discourage the mating of a certain fish species. Fishy romance trumped the lives of 3,100 Orleanians. "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," says Joe Towers, who was counsel for the New Orleans District of the Corps.
Read the whole thing.
All this could be great fun if it weren't so dangerous. Winston Churchill, after all, once observed that he liked pigs because "a dog looks up to you, a cat looks down on you, but a pig accepts you as an equal." But when politics, fashion and entertainment fuse with scientific "factoids," truth drowns in a flood of misinformation. In his new book, "Eco-Freaks," John Berlau, a policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank devoted to environmental policies, catalogs the tragic mistakes imposed on the rest of us by the environmentally correct. After Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," DDT was banned nearly everywhere. Most of her "evidence" later turned out to be all wrong, but 2 million poor Africans die every year of malaria that DDT was on the way to eradicating. Al Gore, of course, blames global warming.
Asbestos, like DDT, gets a bad rap in the popular media, but nothing else comes close as a shield against heat. The original plans for the World Trade Center called for the interior steel in both towers to be covered with asbestos-based fireproofing material. Asbestos was eliminated when environmentalists objected. Engineers think the twin towers might be standing today but for the politically correct construction. Asbestos would have at least slowed the spread of the fire and the melting of the metal, giving hundreds of those who perished a chance to escape.
Hurricane Katrina need not have been the tragedy it was. In 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to build large steel and concrete "sea gates" below sea level to prevent hurricane force winds driving storm surges into Lake Pontchartrain, overflowing into low-lying New Orleans. Such gates have been enormously successful in the Netherlands. But the Environmental Defense Fund, which had been a party to the lawsuit leading to the banning of DDT, persuaded a judge that the sea gates would discourage the mating of a certain fish species. Fishy romance trumped the lives of 3,100 Orleanians. "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," says Joe Towers, who was counsel for the New Orleans District of the Corps.
Read the whole thing.
A World Without America
Here is one of the videos produced by Brit Tim Montgomerie and the great people at www.18doughtystreet.com
A World Without America
This is a rather old post by Peter Brookes, but it has inspired some of our British friends, most notably Tim Montgomerie to produce some videos along the same lines. Read it:
A World Without America
In spite of a mainstream anti-Americanism prevalent in British society, they remain our stalwart friends when it really counts. American's in general hold Britain in very high regard for good reason. I thank Tim Montgomery for his continued efforts to counter the anti-American feelings so shamelessy exploited by morons like Jeremy Clarkson (see previous posts).
A World Without America
In spite of a mainstream anti-Americanism prevalent in British society, they remain our stalwart friends when it really counts. American's in general hold Britain in very high regard for good reason. I thank Tim Montgomery for his continued efforts to counter the anti-American feelings so shamelessy exploited by morons like Jeremy Clarkson (see previous posts).
Death to the Chief!
As a proud Illinoisian, I am as disappointed as Robert Novak with this disgraceful display of political correctness by my father's alma mater. Read Mr. Novak's comments on the U of I's decision to axe Chief Illiniwek:
Death to the Chief!
Death to the Chief!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Why His Haters Can’t Do Without George W. Bush
Here is an interesting article from Keith Thompson:
Why His Haters Can’t Do Without George W. Bush
2/20/2007 9:45 PM
Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it's all the Democrats have….The important thing is to "keep hate alive." If hate worked in '06, maybe it will work again in '08, when the stakes will be considerably higher. — Wesley Pruden
It’s tempting to say it has been a very long time since America has witnessed animosity toward an incumbent president comparable to the hard left’s malice toward George W. Bush. But in reality it hasn’t been that long at all.
Remember what his partisan defenders called the "inquisition" against Bill Clinton? Try this on for size: The left’s monolithic crusade against anything and everything Bush is more than similar; it’s identical to the worst of the hard right’s take-no-prisoners offensive against Bill and Hillary. (Who can forget the oft-repeated claim that the Clintons ordered White House counsel Vince Foster murdered?)
True, the personalities are different. So are the political issues and circumstances of the two administrations. Still, the emotional dynamics can be viewed as interchangeable — with one important exception. Serious conservatives of the 1990s rolled their eyes at the Vince Foster allegation. By contrast, today's progressive movement takes as an article of faith that Bush/Cheney masterminded the September 11 attacks.
Bush’s enemies reject this analysis, for they consider their vendetta different in kind from what they considered unfair attacks against Clinton. This allows them to insist that their destructive quest is motivated by the highest of principles. As opposed to driven by group psychological dynamics of the most primeval kind.
To consider that possibility might tempt Bush haters to look in mirror — never a good idea when maintaining your team’s identity as righteous and pure depends upon attributing abject evil to your opponents. Also, "owning your projections" is not a terribly useful strategy in the reflection-free zone of 24/7 cable news, which requires polarized contenders whose fingers of blame always point away from themselves.
No, it is indispensable to find a scapegoat who personifies everything that’s wrong, bad, evil; someone who does so monolithically. Only when that person is banished can order, integrity, and goodness be restored to the kingdom.
Enter George W. Bush, the “identified patient” of the left.
I first encountered this phrase at a seminar led by Carl Whitaker, an early pioneer in family therapy, or systems-oriented therapy. Like most psychologists schooled in psychodynamic methods, Whitaker had begun his career talking with individual patients about their personal problems, life challenges, goals; their “issues.”
Over time, Whitaker noticed that his patients had something in common. They all talked a lot about people with names like Mom, Dad, Brother, Sister, Grandpa and Grandma. Whitaker got the curious idea that it might be useful to invite as many of these actual people into the therapy room at the same time, to speak for themselves and describe the family drama, tragedy, or comedy as they saw it.
Since each patient was actualy part of a “family system” with traditions, norms, rituals, and rules — spoken as well as unspoken — why not create a therapeutic framework in which the actual system could be observed in real time and space? As Whitaker began conducting multigenerational family therapy, he noticed dynamics that hadn’t been apparent with the “one patient in a room at a time” framework.
In particular: Assembled families tended to identify a particular member of the family unit as the primary source of the family’s problems!
Whitaker soon realized that this "identified patient,” or I.P. (drug-dealing son or slacker daughter; dad who drinks too much or mom who constantly complains) acted as a stand-in for some other problem that the family refused to address. Moreover, he discovered that by serving as the family’s “symptom bearer,” the I.P. permitted the other members of the family to continue their own dysfunctional behaviors.
Such a deal: one person gets to be “it,” the others get to be righteous. Sound anything like family gatherings you’ve attended?
Early on, Whitaker figured out that anything resembling family health could only be achieved by strategically taking the onus off the I.P. Not because he or she was a saint, but because no one else in the room was. Using methods sometimes indistinguishable from mischief, including making paradoxical remarks that (not always gently) nudged participants from their fixed perspectives, Whitaker became quite skilled at shifting the family’s collective gaze from the identified patients to the family system per se. He did so by expanding the symptoms.
For instance, during sessions when someone in the family pointed to the identified patient, Whitaker refused to talk about the identified patient. At such moments he sometimes literally put his arm around the scapegoat’s shoulder and said playfully said, “Hey, these folks have really got it in for you.”
To say the least, this had the effect of distributing anxiety more equally among all family members.
This way of “perturbing” the system’s existing dynamics generally led families to behave in more intelligent, flexible, adaptive ways. The family got healthier to the extent that everybody realized their role in the “Don’t blame me” racket and took responsibility for their role in maintaining the family’s fixations.
Concerning George W. Bush, how clear does it need to be? With the fervor of castle-storming villagers and witch burners of ages past, today’s impeachment-now zealots have transformed the president into their very own “identified patient.” The hard left’s demonizing of Bush has the convenient effect (secondary or primary, you tell me) of disguising their true political agenda: slash defense spending, disable the military, annex American sovereignty to some putative global authority, restore confiscatory taxation, implement a European-style welfare state, open the borders to Mexico, continue class warfare and bitter sectarian rivalry in the name of “diversity.” This is the short list.
By blaming Bush for everything, his inquisitors keep America’s attention off that agenda — sensibly, since most of its tenets are opposed by a majority of Americans in today’s center-right political reality. Nancy Pelosi understands that Democrats captured congress by advocating a vague “new direction” that amplified the country’s ambivalence about Bush, especially his Iraq policy.
Pelosi means to stay with this approach until her party returns to the White House in 2009 — a possibility that Republicans can no longer hope to stave off by shouting “Hillary!” in a tone that conveys “Antichrist!”
None of this is to say that identified patients don’t bring real problems of their own; to the contrary. In addition to serving as a screen for the family’s distorted projections, and generally as catalyst for the family’s decision to seek help, scapegoats invariably make their own contributions to the pathology of the system as a whole. Hence the ease with which the rest of the family targets them in the first place.
“Oh, we’d be fine as a family if it weren’t for the bad stuff Jimmy does.” Or the Susie’s meth habit, or Mom’s selfishness, or Dad’s recklessness. Or George W. Bush.
The president’s errors of judgment, policy, tone, substance, style, and tactics are legion; and therefore beyond the scope of this piece. I’ll simply say that the administration’s confusion of priorities in Iraq — the attempts to establish democracy before creating order and security — represents a strategic blunder of incalculable dimensions. In the “family system” that is America’s body politic, George W. Bush has his own accounting to do for the stunning mismanagement of the Iraq war.
Yes, just as paranoids have real enemies, scapegoats commit blunders deserving of criticism. No disagreement from me about that.
Still, given the current dynamics I’m taking the side of the identified patient named Bush. From a "systems" perspective, I find it telling that so many of those who despise him are also people who clearly seek to hasten — many seem to welcome — American defeat in the Middle East. That is enough to get me to take the seat next to Bush, and whisper with a nudge, ““These guys really do seem to have it in for you.”
When a sometimes discouraging president is hated for coming late to the right policy — securing Baghdad with troop reinforcements — and when his haters are demagogues who anchor their political fortunes on the failure of that country’s fledgling democracy — hell, I’ll go with the latecomer any day. Give me a choice that’s hard.
Why His Haters Can’t Do Without George W. Bush
2/20/2007 9:45 PM
Destroying a president is not much of a strategy to win a war, but it's all the Democrats have….The important thing is to "keep hate alive." If hate worked in '06, maybe it will work again in '08, when the stakes will be considerably higher. — Wesley Pruden
It’s tempting to say it has been a very long time since America has witnessed animosity toward an incumbent president comparable to the hard left’s malice toward George W. Bush. But in reality it hasn’t been that long at all.
Remember what his partisan defenders called the "inquisition" against Bill Clinton? Try this on for size: The left’s monolithic crusade against anything and everything Bush is more than similar; it’s identical to the worst of the hard right’s take-no-prisoners offensive against Bill and Hillary. (Who can forget the oft-repeated claim that the Clintons ordered White House counsel Vince Foster murdered?)
True, the personalities are different. So are the political issues and circumstances of the two administrations. Still, the emotional dynamics can be viewed as interchangeable — with one important exception. Serious conservatives of the 1990s rolled their eyes at the Vince Foster allegation. By contrast, today's progressive movement takes as an article of faith that Bush/Cheney masterminded the September 11 attacks.
Bush’s enemies reject this analysis, for they consider their vendetta different in kind from what they considered unfair attacks against Clinton. This allows them to insist that their destructive quest is motivated by the highest of principles. As opposed to driven by group psychological dynamics of the most primeval kind.
To consider that possibility might tempt Bush haters to look in mirror — never a good idea when maintaining your team’s identity as righteous and pure depends upon attributing abject evil to your opponents. Also, "owning your projections" is not a terribly useful strategy in the reflection-free zone of 24/7 cable news, which requires polarized contenders whose fingers of blame always point away from themselves.
No, it is indispensable to find a scapegoat who personifies everything that’s wrong, bad, evil; someone who does so monolithically. Only when that person is banished can order, integrity, and goodness be restored to the kingdom.
Enter George W. Bush, the “identified patient” of the left.
I first encountered this phrase at a seminar led by Carl Whitaker, an early pioneer in family therapy, or systems-oriented therapy. Like most psychologists schooled in psychodynamic methods, Whitaker had begun his career talking with individual patients about their personal problems, life challenges, goals; their “issues.”
Over time, Whitaker noticed that his patients had something in common. They all talked a lot about people with names like Mom, Dad, Brother, Sister, Grandpa and Grandma. Whitaker got the curious idea that it might be useful to invite as many of these actual people into the therapy room at the same time, to speak for themselves and describe the family drama, tragedy, or comedy as they saw it.
Since each patient was actualy part of a “family system” with traditions, norms, rituals, and rules — spoken as well as unspoken — why not create a therapeutic framework in which the actual system could be observed in real time and space? As Whitaker began conducting multigenerational family therapy, he noticed dynamics that hadn’t been apparent with the “one patient in a room at a time” framework.
In particular: Assembled families tended to identify a particular member of the family unit as the primary source of the family’s problems!
Whitaker soon realized that this "identified patient,” or I.P. (drug-dealing son or slacker daughter; dad who drinks too much or mom who constantly complains) acted as a stand-in for some other problem that the family refused to address. Moreover, he discovered that by serving as the family’s “symptom bearer,” the I.P. permitted the other members of the family to continue their own dysfunctional behaviors.
Such a deal: one person gets to be “it,” the others get to be righteous. Sound anything like family gatherings you’ve attended?
Early on, Whitaker figured out that anything resembling family health could only be achieved by strategically taking the onus off the I.P. Not because he or she was a saint, but because no one else in the room was. Using methods sometimes indistinguishable from mischief, including making paradoxical remarks that (not always gently) nudged participants from their fixed perspectives, Whitaker became quite skilled at shifting the family’s collective gaze from the identified patients to the family system per se. He did so by expanding the symptoms.
For instance, during sessions when someone in the family pointed to the identified patient, Whitaker refused to talk about the identified patient. At such moments he sometimes literally put his arm around the scapegoat’s shoulder and said playfully said, “Hey, these folks have really got it in for you.”
To say the least, this had the effect of distributing anxiety more equally among all family members.
This way of “perturbing” the system’s existing dynamics generally led families to behave in more intelligent, flexible, adaptive ways. The family got healthier to the extent that everybody realized their role in the “Don’t blame me” racket and took responsibility for their role in maintaining the family’s fixations.
Concerning George W. Bush, how clear does it need to be? With the fervor of castle-storming villagers and witch burners of ages past, today’s impeachment-now zealots have transformed the president into their very own “identified patient.” The hard left’s demonizing of Bush has the convenient effect (secondary or primary, you tell me) of disguising their true political agenda: slash defense spending, disable the military, annex American sovereignty to some putative global authority, restore confiscatory taxation, implement a European-style welfare state, open the borders to Mexico, continue class warfare and bitter sectarian rivalry in the name of “diversity.” This is the short list.
By blaming Bush for everything, his inquisitors keep America’s attention off that agenda — sensibly, since most of its tenets are opposed by a majority of Americans in today’s center-right political reality. Nancy Pelosi understands that Democrats captured congress by advocating a vague “new direction” that amplified the country’s ambivalence about Bush, especially his Iraq policy.
Pelosi means to stay with this approach until her party returns to the White House in 2009 — a possibility that Republicans can no longer hope to stave off by shouting “Hillary!” in a tone that conveys “Antichrist!”
None of this is to say that identified patients don’t bring real problems of their own; to the contrary. In addition to serving as a screen for the family’s distorted projections, and generally as catalyst for the family’s decision to seek help, scapegoats invariably make their own contributions to the pathology of the system as a whole. Hence the ease with which the rest of the family targets them in the first place.
“Oh, we’d be fine as a family if it weren’t for the bad stuff Jimmy does.” Or the Susie’s meth habit, or Mom’s selfishness, or Dad’s recklessness. Or George W. Bush.
The president’s errors of judgment, policy, tone, substance, style, and tactics are legion; and therefore beyond the scope of this piece. I’ll simply say that the administration’s confusion of priorities in Iraq — the attempts to establish democracy before creating order and security — represents a strategic blunder of incalculable dimensions. In the “family system” that is America’s body politic, George W. Bush has his own accounting to do for the stunning mismanagement of the Iraq war.
Yes, just as paranoids have real enemies, scapegoats commit blunders deserving of criticism. No disagreement from me about that.
Still, given the current dynamics I’m taking the side of the identified patient named Bush. From a "systems" perspective, I find it telling that so many of those who despise him are also people who clearly seek to hasten — many seem to welcome — American defeat in the Middle East. That is enough to get me to take the seat next to Bush, and whisper with a nudge, ““These guys really do seem to have it in for you.”
When a sometimes discouraging president is hated for coming late to the right policy — securing Baghdad with troop reinforcements — and when his haters are demagogues who anchor their political fortunes on the failure of that country’s fledgling democracy — hell, I’ll go with the latecomer any day. Give me a choice that’s hard.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Jeremy Clarkson is a Pompous Jerk
I watched the recent Top Gear segment in Alabama (linked in previous post) and I was disgusted enough to use part of my lunch hour to compose the following rant......
Jeremy Clarkson is a pompous jerk.
Anybody should be able to watch that segment and see exactly what was going on, but sadly most everyone misses the real point, because we all know exactly what everyone in Alabama is like, right? They're all ignorant, stupid, white-trash, bigoted rednecks. Everybody knows that!
Isn't it nice to feel superior to people who can be stereotyped as having lesser intellects than ourselves?
Isn't it nice to feel superior to people who can be stereotyped as having lesser intellects than ourselves?
It might feel good, but it's called bigotry, and it's not nice. It says a lot more about Clarkson and Co. than about those random people he was ridiculing.
Unfortunately most people saw it and (thanks to editing that would make Michael Moore proud) thought that those dumb rednecks attacked them because they said "NASCAR Sucks", or for any of the other stupid slogans.
Those people knew exactly what those smarmy Brits were saying about them, their friends and their families. "You people down here are stupid and ignorant, so we (of superior intellect) are going to ridicule you while our camera crew captures it all on film". That's what they were saying and it was obvious even to those "rednecks" from Alabama. By the way, if you're not certain if someone's stupid, you can tell for sure by their Southern accent, right?
The Top Gear crew were run off for insulting those people personally and they fully deserved it. None of those people cared that they put "Hillary for President" on their stupid car, but that Clarkson and Co. thought those things were the height of sarcastic wit. Like poking dumb animals with a stick perhaps? They were out of order and deserved a shoeing.
Although Dubya was listed by Mr. Clarkson as the number 1 "religion" there, Kerry got 40% of the vote in Alabama, so at least 40% of the people are smart in Clarkson's eyes, right? I know, I know, it was the black people in Alabama who voted for Kerry because, as a democrat, he's black too.
Interesting too how although only a very small portion of their trip was in Alabama, that's where they chose to display their bigotry, knowing full well that Alabama is synonymous in Britain with all things stupid and American.
The "article" above by Clarkson that shows exactly what an anti-American bigot he is. It's a vicious diatribe rife with falsehoods and dripping with hatred. Read the whole thing (click on the image to get full size).
To rebut a bit of his article: 99% of the stories of violence in New Orleans turned out to be false. Street rumors fueled by a willing press who (like Mr. Clarkson) couldn't be bothered to check out the source. The many stories of charity and brotherhood, which were true by the way, just don't make good press or cement negative stereotypes. People (black and white) in all of the neighboring states opening their homes to strangers (black and white), billions of dollars in private charitable contributions, and on and on. Who cares about stuff like that? Certainly not Mr. Clarkson. And blacks weren't over represented as casualties in New Orleans, but old people were. But I don't suppose even Mr. Clarkson would accuse us stupid Americans of being "anti-old white people" though, we need to be both stupid and racist to cement his image of us.
And they didn't call in the "Marines" either, they called in the National Guard. That's one of the things the Guard is for, disaster relief. I would know, having volunteered for flood duty during the devastating Mississippi River flood while a member of the National Guard. And they didn't shoot anyone from a helicopter gunship for stealing food either. What they did do was work 18 hour days, 7 days a week saving people and providing them with security, food, water, shelter and medical attention. Only to be smeared by the superior intellect of Mr. Clarkson.
Clarkson should stick to cars and stay away from politics.
And he can shove his rabid anti-Americanism up his pompous English backside.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Surrender Without Responsibility
That should be the Democrats' new slogan....
Hot Air
Instapundit linked to:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html
Hot Air
Instapundit linked to:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2751.html
Obamamania....
From the NY Post:
February 14, 2007 -- Quite an introduction Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is getting to the campaign trail. And quite an introduction America is getting to Obama.
One moment it's a feud with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
The next he's telling Iowans that the lives of American soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq were "wasted."
Incredible.
Yes, Obama quickly said he had "misspoken." And the next day he offered an "apology" to military families he might have offended.
Might have offended?
We can only imagine.
All of America should be offended.
As we noted here yesterday, Barack Obama is but two years removed from a backbench seat in the Illinois legislature.
We suggested that he needs a tad more seasoning in foreign affairs before seeking the nation's highest office.
Now that appears to be among his lesser shortcomings.
He needs to grow up, too.
February 14, 2007 -- Quite an introduction Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is getting to the campaign trail. And quite an introduction America is getting to Obama.
One moment it's a feud with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
The next he's telling Iowans that the lives of American soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq were "wasted."
Incredible.
Yes, Obama quickly said he had "misspoken." And the next day he offered an "apology" to military families he might have offended.
Might have offended?
We can only imagine.
All of America should be offended.
As we noted here yesterday, Barack Obama is but two years removed from a backbench seat in the Illinois legislature.
We suggested that he needs a tad more seasoning in foreign affairs before seeking the nation's highest office.
Now that appears to be among his lesser shortcomings.
He needs to grow up, too.
"Higher Education"
This is sadly all too common amongst the educators in America, who are indoctrinating more than educating these days.
Read this (if you have the stomach for it):
Moonbat "professor"
Read this (if you have the stomach for it):
Moonbat "professor"
CNN Cafferty Comforts Iran
I really don't know what to say. Cafferty is so infected with BDS that he seems to support the Iranian's providing more lethal support the "insurgency" in Iraq than they would otherwise have. If there is any doubt of the bias on Cafferty, Blitzer, and CNN in general, this should (but unfortunately won't) dispell it.
Muslims say God bless America (MUST SEE)
Now here is some must see TV. Many people don't want to hear this, or will discount him as an American "stooge". I hope (and believe) that he represents a majority of Iraqis. I'm very impressed that MEMRITV allowed him to speak his mind.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Global Warming Hysteria
I'm a global warming skeptic, so shoot me.....
I wish I could be an oil company stooge. I'll bet they get paid more than I do. I'm just a GW skeptic for no profit whatsoever. What's wrong with me???
Read this:
Dennis Prager
And this:
Thomas Sowell
I wish I could be an oil company stooge. I'll bet they get paid more than I do. I'm just a GW skeptic for no profit whatsoever. What's wrong with me???
Read this:
Dennis Prager
And this:
Thomas Sowell
Truly Inappropriate Behavior
“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.”
-President Abraham Lincoln-
CORRECTION: The above quote was not said by Honest Abe but by some dude named J. Michael Waller, see below:
http://www.factcheck.org/article415.html
The line between admirable dissent and shameless grandstanding for political purposes couldn't be more clear.
Read this from Frank J Gaffney Jr.
-President Abraham Lincoln-
CORRECTION: The above quote was not said by Honest Abe but by some dude named J. Michael Waller, see below:
http://www.factcheck.org/article415.html
The line between admirable dissent and shameless grandstanding for political purposes couldn't be more clear.
Read this from Frank J Gaffney Jr.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Burn the Witch!!!
Obviously, this guy hasn't drunk the global warming kool-aid....
Nigel Calder
Neither has Mr. Steyn.....
Nigel Calder
Neither has Mr. Steyn.....
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
My Views on Global Warming.....
Ok, I feel the need to weigh in on the global warming issue. In a nutshell, my views are:
1. Global warming is a reality.
2. The extent to which man is responsible (if any) is still in question.
3. No matter what you've heard. There is no "consensus" about global warming and very respected scientists that are skeptical about the so-called "consensus" are not all oil industry stooges.
4. Whether or not man is responsible, the extent to which we can do anything about it is still in question.
5. Science and politics don't mix, and when they do, it's dangerous.
6. When studying a complex issue, if you already know the answer you're looking for, you usually find it.
7. Knee-jerk solutions and hysteria will only confuse the issue and the motives of many who advocate these "solutions" are questionable.
8. However, if the discussion accelerates improvements in the way we produce power, transport people and goods, provide clean water, provide food, and basically fuel our lifestyle, while not hindering growth (especially in undeveloped countries), that can only be a good thing.
9. Much global warming hysteria is steeped in ill-informed anti-Americanism.
10. Al Gore is a snake-oil salesman.
Some articles on both sides of the issue:
George Will
Wall Street Journal
Robert Samuelson
Dennis Byrne
Debra Saunders
Paul Driessen
Some sites on both sides of the issue:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
From Brainster:
Global Warming Roundup
The first Canadian to earn a PhD in climatology says it's bunk:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Meanwhile, the Lefty bloggers are incensed that a new poll reveals that very few Republicans believe in their Global Warming revelations. David Roberts has a cow:
But we survey the Democrats and find a patchwork of apathy and equivocation. We find endless hearings and tepid cap-and-trade proposals. Only two bills -- Waxman's Safe Climate Act in the House, Sanders' Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act in the Senate -- even pretend to target the 80% emissions reductions by 2050 scientists say will be needed to avoid irreparable damage. Suffice to say, those bills -- the closest thing on offer to alarmism -- are not supported by 87% of Congressional Democrats.
Of course he uses this to bash Republicans.
1. Global warming is a reality.
2. The extent to which man is responsible (if any) is still in question.
3. No matter what you've heard. There is no "consensus" about global warming and very respected scientists that are skeptical about the so-called "consensus" are not all oil industry stooges.
4. Whether or not man is responsible, the extent to which we can do anything about it is still in question.
5. Science and politics don't mix, and when they do, it's dangerous.
6. When studying a complex issue, if you already know the answer you're looking for, you usually find it.
7. Knee-jerk solutions and hysteria will only confuse the issue and the motives of many who advocate these "solutions" are questionable.
8. However, if the discussion accelerates improvements in the way we produce power, transport people and goods, provide clean water, provide food, and basically fuel our lifestyle, while not hindering growth (especially in undeveloped countries), that can only be a good thing.
9. Much global warming hysteria is steeped in ill-informed anti-Americanism.
10. Al Gore is a snake-oil salesman.
Some articles on both sides of the issue:
George Will
Wall Street Journal
Robert Samuelson
Dennis Byrne
Debra Saunders
Paul Driessen
Some sites on both sides of the issue:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://www.ucsusa.org/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
From Brainster:
Global Warming Roundup
The first Canadian to earn a PhD in climatology says it's bunk:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Meanwhile, the Lefty bloggers are incensed that a new poll reveals that very few Republicans believe in their Global Warming revelations. David Roberts has a cow:
But we survey the Democrats and find a patchwork of apathy and equivocation. We find endless hearings and tepid cap-and-trade proposals. Only two bills -- Waxman's Safe Climate Act in the House, Sanders' Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act in the Senate -- even pretend to target the 80% emissions reductions by 2050 scientists say will be needed to avoid irreparable damage. Suffice to say, those bills -- the closest thing on offer to alarmism -- are not supported by 87% of Congressional Democrats.
Of course he uses this to bash Republicans.
Defense spending and GDP
Another great article from Tigerhawk:The Wall Street Journal's front page this morning features an interesting article (sub. req.), "How War's Expense Didn't Strain Economy." The article focuses on economic considerations and fund flows, but the heart of the matter is this: The wars of the last five years have been very inexpensive as a proportion of our national income, which is the only measurement that matters. As the graph at right makes clear, the twin wars of Afghanistan and Iraq have pushed the share of national income going to defense to around two-thirds of the level that prevailed when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. In fact, we're still spending less than at the trough of Jimmy Carter's post-Vietnam defunding of national defense.
It is incredible that the ridiculous argument that these wars are fiscally unsustainable has worked its way into the national dialogue. I had dinner with a well-informed and (but?) fairly lefty cousin a couple of weeks ago, and she cited the huge cost of the war among her various reasons for opposing it. I made the (to me) obvious point that defense spending was actually still very low by post-war standards and a fraction of the level that prevailed even in the 1980s. Her response: Why doesn't anybody know that? Well, perhaps NPR doesn't dwell on that sort of thing. The New York Times certainly doesn't.
The persistent claim from the left that we cannot "afford" these wars may or may not be true in a larger sense -- the "affordability" of American casualties or lost "prestige" among transnational progressives is obviously a matter of weighing one value against another -- but it is patently false as a matter of fiscal policy. We know we can afford to spend 4% of GDP on defense and still grow the economy more than 3% a year.
Outrage over child soldiers
From Tigerhawk:
Outrage over child soldiers: "Save the Children" forgot some
Outrage over child soldiers: "Save the Children" forgot some The British arm of the charity "Save the Children" is getting some pick-up of a press release decrying the recruitment of child soldiers ten years after the promulgation of the Cape Town Principles against that practice.
According to Save the Children, there are 13 offending jurisdictions: Fighting forces are recruiting and using child soldiers within Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Nepal, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda.
Save the Children "forgot" to notice some child soldiers.
Here are the names of just a few of them (age at death or capture): Ismail Abu Nada (12), Anwar Ill Azi Mustafa Hamarna (13), Yosef Basem Yosef Zakut (14), Abdullah Quran (12), Hussam Abdo (16), Nasser Awartani (15), Muataz Takhsin Karini (16), Ahmed Bushkar (17), Ayub Maaruf (16), Aamer Alfar (16), Mahmoud Tabouq (15 or 16), and Hassan Hashash (15).
They are Palestinian Arabs.
The question is, did Save the Children ignore them because it does not care about Palestinian Arabs, or because it supports the cause of the armies recruiting them to such a degree that it is unwilling to condemn their crime even in a press release devoted to the subject?
What could be the third explanation?
Outrage over child soldiers: "Save the Children" forgot some
Outrage over child soldiers: "Save the Children" forgot some The British arm of the charity "Save the Children" is getting some pick-up of a press release decrying the recruitment of child soldiers ten years after the promulgation of the Cape Town Principles against that practice.
According to Save the Children, there are 13 offending jurisdictions: Fighting forces are recruiting and using child soldiers within Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Nepal, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda.
Save the Children "forgot" to notice some child soldiers.
Here are the names of just a few of them (age at death or capture): Ismail Abu Nada (12), Anwar Ill Azi Mustafa Hamarna (13), Yosef Basem Yosef Zakut (14), Abdullah Quran (12), Hussam Abdo (16), Nasser Awartani (15), Muataz Takhsin Karini (16), Ahmed Bushkar (17), Ayub Maaruf (16), Aamer Alfar (16), Mahmoud Tabouq (15 or 16), and Hassan Hashash (15).
They are Palestinian Arabs.
The question is, did Save the Children ignore them because it does not care about Palestinian Arabs, or because it supports the cause of the armies recruiting them to such a degree that it is unwilling to condemn their crime even in a press release devoted to the subject?
What could be the third explanation?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Joy of Blogging
This is my first foray in the blogging world, and I highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest and wants to share it. Especially (as in my case) when one doesn't get a chance to share it very often.
I have an interest in politics, especially as they relate to American foreign policy. I spent 21 years in the Air National Guard and retired just before 9-11. I wish I were still in, but that's not possible once you retire. And even if it were, I have settled in Europe and started a family. However, I am still very sympathetic to our military, and I have always been a very patriotic guy.
Unfortunately, people here don't want to talk about it unless you subscribe to their group-think and suffer from BDS. That is unless you want to be a whipping boy and suffer from an endless onslaught of cynical and ill-informed talking points gleaned from wackos like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, or John Kerry.
I started this blog give myself an outlet other than my long-suffering yet still sympathetic wife (god bless her).
It's like shouting in the wilderness when no one's listening. Very therapeutic.....
Part of me will be disappointed if anyone actually looks at my blog.
But to be honest, I wouldn't mind sparring with a couple of liberals. I'm a glutton for punishment.
I have an interest in politics, especially as they relate to American foreign policy. I spent 21 years in the Air National Guard and retired just before 9-11. I wish I were still in, but that's not possible once you retire. And even if it were, I have settled in Europe and started a family. However, I am still very sympathetic to our military, and I have always been a very patriotic guy.
Unfortunately, people here don't want to talk about it unless you subscribe to their group-think and suffer from BDS. That is unless you want to be a whipping boy and suffer from an endless onslaught of cynical and ill-informed talking points gleaned from wackos like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, or John Kerry.
I started this blog give myself an outlet other than my long-suffering yet still sympathetic wife (god bless her).
It's like shouting in the wilderness when no one's listening. Very therapeutic.....
Part of me will be disappointed if anyone actually looks at my blog.
But to be honest, I wouldn't mind sparring with a couple of liberals. I'm a glutton for punishment.
War and Presidential Popularity
Frederick Chiaventone has a great article at Real Clear Politics. Give it a read:
War and Presidential Popularity
War and Presidential Popularity
Victor Hanson on the "New Ugly Americans"
As a yank living in Europe, I understand the tendency to bash the Bush administration in order to ingratiate yourself to people in this overwhelmingly Bush-deranged continent. But I can't do it. I don't care what they think, I have to be honest regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately, no amount of reason or facts can penetrate the rock-hard shell of liberal self-righteousness that most Europeans have built around themselves. So these days, I just avoid the discussion. You can actually lose friend over here by defending the United States' foreign policy. To be honest though, when that's happened to me, it was never a big loss, even if it might have seemed like it at the time.
Anyway, a dose of reason and Kerry bashing from the erudite Prof. Hanson:
The Ugly American
Anyway, a dose of reason and Kerry bashing from the erudite Prof. Hanson:
The Ugly American
Steyn on Darfur Dems et. al.
Mark Steyn is one of the best writers out there today. Always good for a dose of sanity. Please read his very sobering book "America Alone".
For today however, I offer:
Old U.S.S.R. made Old Europe look new
For today however, I offer:
Old U.S.S.R. made Old Europe look new
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
