Archive for November, 2009
Why not have webcams at voting centers? I was reading this Pajamas Media piece about the Honduran elections. They use webcams. Why can’t we?
If you listen to Democrats, Elrond’s assessment of mankind as given to Gandalf the Grey in Tolkien’s classic Lord of the Rings describes Republicans:
“Men are weak. There’s no strength left in the world of Men. They’re scattered, divided, leaderless.”
Liberals look at Republicans and see hopelessness on the other side. They rejoice. These are the same people who control every branch of government and the press and are failing miserably to fulfill any hope of real change.
Still, the Left worries over Republican rifts. From the Washington Post’s Jon Cohen and Dan Balz:
The Republican rank and file is largely in sync with GOP lawmakers in their staunch opposition to efforts by President Obama and Democrats to enact major health-care legislation, but a new Washington Post poll also reveals deep dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the party’s leadership as well as ideological and generational differences that may prove big obstacles to the party’s plans for reclaiming power.
Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are overwhelmingly negative about Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly, with nearly all dissatisfied with the administration’s policies and almost half saying they are “angry” about them. About three-quarters have a more basic complaint, saying Obama does not stand for “traditional American values.” More than eight in 10 say there is no chance they would support his reelection.
But for all the talk among Republican elected officials about a nascent comeback after gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey this month, there is also broad frustration among Republican voters about the party’s direction, detachment from its congressional representatives and a schism over its priorities.
As weak, divided and leaderless as the Republican party seems right now, they still beat the Democrats.
If the Democrats are so concerned, perhaps they ought to fix their own house. Right now, the troops, even the sycophantic ones, are restless. Today, Michael Moore wrote a Dear Obama letter:
Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.
It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).
From Big Hollywood a response:
Below are the first few paragraphs, but Moore’s closing plea — a purely symbolic hand-wringing of concern for the Afghan people — is odd considering he wants President Obama to withdraw from Afghanistan, which can only mean turning 25 million innocent people over to brutal Islamics. Oh, well, being a Leftist means never having to make sense…
And that’s the problem with the Left these days [A nice take down by Jules Crittendon here]. They lack intellectual coherence and yes, leadership.
If the Left is looking for leadership, they better look beyond President Barack Obama, or Harry Reid. Now, Nancy Pelosi? She’ll lead, alright. She’ll lead the party right off the radical cliff into oblivion. President Obama and Harry Reid will wander the wilderness seeking the politically expedient solution.
There are no politically expedient solutions that work, though–well none that involve liberal ideas. America is not a liberal country. She’s a center-right, God-loving, work-desiring country. The middle class, common-sense aesthetic , as long as it’s not plunged into poverty, still reigns. Give the Democrats another couple years of disastrous policies both foreign and domestic and the country will be enslaved by liberal policies. The country will be destroyed from within. They will rule precisely nothing. The Golden Goose will be killed.
Leaderless. Divided. Democrats. Really, it’s the best way. Heaven forbid they unite. May they fumble along until the Republicans retake the government helm.
An email is going around with this as the content:
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him.
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me.
I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia . Ever! Nobody recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.”
Root adds that he was also, like Obama, “Class of ’83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me.
No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange?
It’s very strange.” Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
Here’s the Wiki on Obama at Columbia: http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama
The New York Sun has a story from 2008 that calls Obama’s time at Columbia “a mystery”:
Senator Obama’s life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.
Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.
The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.
Here’s the Snopes column on Obama’s “thesis” at Columbia.
Back in 2008, Tom Maguire had some theories from this time in Obama’s life.
I suspect that the more people dislike what President Obama is doing, the more curious about his opaque past people will become.
In case you missed it this weekend…
Anyway, American Power has more. I just wanted you guys to know that there might be more story behind the fame-grabbing meme–which is for sure true.
At the very least, this is more evidence of an amateurish administration.
Amateur hour, indeed. From the Washington Post:
E-mails turned over to the Secret Service show that Tareq and Michaele Salahi had sought a top Defense Department official’s help to gain access to last week’s White House state dinner.
People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to attend Tuesday’s gala, even though they weren’t on the official guest list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis’ lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.
These people surprised no one. Via The Anchoress
Andrew Sullivan, is, in a word, tedious:
I’ve emailed Bellow asking him about the fact-checking process for “Going Rogue.” Getting an on-the-record confirmation that, for example, Harper Collins reviewed the medical records proving Palin’s multiple medical stories (including corrected hospital records by her own account) would be a useful piece of information. Since it appears that the McCain campaign knew nothing of these rumors, and indeed, by some accounts, nothing even of Bristol’s pregnancy, it would be reassuring to know that someone somewhere has actually sought proof of some of Palin’s wildest embellishments or total fantasies.
Sullivan does produce some useful psychological insight into stalkers and conspiracy theorists. They aren’t motivated by facts or reality. And, in fact, engaging them is pure folly as their aims are not truth, but connection to their obsession. The problem for Andrew, is that Sarah Palin is just so far away and detached from him. If only he could be with her. If only he could be her.
Alas, some things are not to be. I hope the Palins have good bodyguards.
Looks like a violent, life-long criminal is responsible for the four police officer murders in Washington and that Governor Huckabee is the reason this man is on the streets. From the Seattle Times:
Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.
“This is the day I’ve been dreading for a long time,” Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas’ Pulaski County said Sunday night when informed that Clemmons was being sought in connection to the killings.
Clemmons’ criminal history includes at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington. The record also stands out for the number of times he has been released from custody despite questions about the danger he posed.
Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child.
This via Confederate Yankee who says:
If Huckabee—now a Fox News personality—did set this man free, his aspirations for a future White House run may be over.
I’d say so.
Michelle Malkin has more.
Most years, I make a list of stuff I think is cool and then recommend it to people to buy. Usually it’s stuff that I like and would like for myself, or have bought myself and think others would like.
Now, there are reasons for everything on this list. If you wonder why?
Jim Hoft reports that President Obama’s next door neighbor physician friend is a die-hard Marxist. His White House is filled with former non-profit workers–that is, people who have never had to be answerable to shareholders, people used to begging for money rather than earning it.
Is Barack Obama friends with one capitalist? Name just one.
Wow. After you get past the shock that a liberal admits there is an anti-American narrative, chew on the fact that the liberal Thomas Friedman still can’t admit how his own ideology feeds and nourishes the anti-American narrative:
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.
The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.
It’s working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said to me: “This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned — mostly from the Gulf.”
This narrative suits Arab governments. It allows them to deflect onto America all of their people’s grievances over why their countries are falling behind. And it suits Al Qaeda, which doesn’t need much organization anymore — just push out The Narrative over the Web and satellite TV, let it heat up humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males, and one or two will open fire on their own. See: Major Hasan.
Let’s see, Bush is evil. The elevation of Abu Grahib. Newsweek publishing the flushed Koran accounts and Friedman is putting the blame on the Arab press?
You have got to be kidding me.
I’m not as inclined to let Friedman off the hook as Don Surber. This back pedaling looks a lot like a subtle defense of President Obama the day before he pushes the surge in Afghanistan. Asking for more troops on the backdrop of losing more troops, seems a lot like justification to me.
And it’s charity Friedman and the liberal elites would never have extended to George Bush. And, by the way, it doesn’t take a freaking genius to know that Hasan is a terrorist. It’s rather self-evident.
Climategate: They Threw Away The Raw Data? Where Is The American Media? And Why Are Liberals Silent?–UPDATEDSunday, November 29th, 2009
The authors of the anthropogenic global warming theory threw away the original data upon which the theory was based. No one can reproduce non-existent data. No one can verify it. As horrendous as manipulating data or lying about the implications of the data might be, throwing out the original data is mortal scientific sin. [Background here.]
From the Times:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
What in the world were these people thinking? Either they were malicious or lazy and neither bodes well for top level scientists. [More details from Climate Science Blog.]
People are smugly driving in smart cars because of this data and it can’t be verified? The government wants to control the thermostat in your home and the data can’t be verified. Nancy Pelosi stands to make millions on wind mills and this data can’t be verified. World leaders are about to sign economy killing agreements based on data that can’t be verified.
In short, the whole world has been turned inside out on a fear that may well be utterly baseless. And we’ll never know because the original data was destroyed?
And here’s my second concern: If you’re watching the news, do you know anything about this? If you read the newspaper, are you reading stories that reflect this knowledge? How much collusion is involved and at what point do major media become irrelevant–if they won’t report news such as this? Roger Simon says:
It was that UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as most of us recall, that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. And they are the ones with the “structural tendency to politicize climate change”. From a scientist to his colleagues, that’s a powerful indictment. So it should be no surprise that Hulme also has some rather cynical things to say about the coming Copenhagen climate conference:
This will blow its course soon in the conventional media without making too much difference to Copenhagen — after all, COP15 is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. But in the Internet worlds of deliberation and in the ‘mood’ of public debate about the trustworthiness of climate science, the reverberations of this episode will live on long beyond COP15. Climate scientists will have to work harder to earn the warranted trust of the public – and maybe that is no bad thing.
Indeed they will. And indeed it isn’t. No matter what our climate czar may insist, climate science and Copenhagen are now under a giant cloud. In fact, as Hume implies, the situation is far more serious than that, because what has been revealed is what strange bedfellows science and politics are in this era. The relationship between politicians and scientists today is not entirely unlike the relationship between scientists and the clergy during the days of Galileo. And the politicians of today know about as much about the science as the bishops of Galileo’s time did, although our politicians are perfectly willing to exploit the science of which they are ignorant and the scientists too often perfectly willing to be complicit in their own exploitation.
And just like in Galileo’s time, the government seems to control the media. Just look at any news aggregator. Are any American news sources breaking stories on Glimategate? No. Why? Because to them, Global Warming is their religion, too.
What’s interesting to me is that the elites are once again (hello Barack Obama) the true believers while the average folks are the ones still skeptical. Who keeps making emotion based political decisions?
Jim Treacher has a conversation
with the Global Warming Zealot in his head.
From Scott Graves on Twitter, “I did a Google search for news about “climate emails”… the American MSM should be ashamed of itself!”
More from Stacy McCain [MUST READ the whole thing] who discusses the religion of global warming and how reason and faith intermingle:
Right, Pete. While we await your Ph.D. dissertation on the physics of transubstantiation — zing! — let’s agree that there have always been religious overtones to environmentalism. One reason that abortion is such a sacred right to some Baby Boomers is that they were deceived by the “Population Bomb” hoax of the 1960s and ’70s, when neo-Malthusians warned that the alternative to draconian population control was a Soylent Green-style dystopia.
These landmark Supreme Court decisions stigmatized religion as unconstitutionally subversive of the educational process, ensuring that future generations of American youth would be inculcated with a sort of neo-Manichean worldview, wherein traditional religious belief had nothing relevant to say about science, history, psychology or any other realm of human inquiry.
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver famously observed, and this legally-certified declaration that there was no overlap between Faith and Reason has not merely marginalized Faith, it has also undermined Reason. When we behold the religious fanaticism of the Temple Cult in regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), we must understand this irrational fruit as a natural product of the poisoned tree of Scientism.
So, McCain asserts that the unreasonable fealty to science becomes religion because of the absence of the same. That makes sense to me. People will fill the holes in knowledge with something and if the plug in the hole of knowledge isn’t God, it’s often some theory that ends up either sounding conspiratorial, or, in this case, an actual conspiracy.
Further, the god becomes not truth but the nebulous “progress” which McCain fairly scorns:
This temptation to think that we are morally superior to our ancestors, you see, is the road to hell that Scientism paves. You need not be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist (like me) to notice how the adherents of Darwin tend to smuggle into their arguments a predisposition toward Whig history, wherein humankind is relentlessly struggling upward on the road of Progress. Here it is best to recall the brilliant aphorism of G.K. Chesterton:
“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.”
Exactly. If everything is Progress and Progress is everything, then decline becomes an ontological impossibility and — by logical extension — today’s Congress is morally superior to the Founders who gathered at Philadelphia in 1776 and 1787.
How humorous, then, that global warming is, in fact, global cooling. That is, the last ten years refute the assertions of some very zealous and self-protective scientists. Literally, the progress of heating has been inverted to cooling. If heating was progressive, is cooling conservative?
This is all nonsense. The temperature is the temperature. What it all means is another question entirely and one the Global Warming alarmists believe is “settled”. It is by no means settled at all.
Maybe Global Warming theory will be brought back into the realm of science and reason rather than faith and religion. Maybe. People invest a lot of emotion in religion and the global warming zealots are no different.
AJ Strata has a look a the data and concludes this [His whole post is crunching numbers and well worth examination and comment, please check it out.]:
I have been working on this post for about a week now, testing a hypothesis I have regarding the raw temp data vs the overly processed CRU, GISS, NCDC, IPCC results (the processed data shows dramatic global warming in the last century). I have been of the opinion the raw temp data tells a different, cooler story than the processed data. My theory is alarmists’ results do not track well with the raw data, and require the merging of unproven and extremely inaccurate proxy data to open the error bars and move the trend lines to produce the desired result. We have a clear isolated example from New Zealand where cherry picked data and time windows have resulted in a ridiculous ‘data merging’ that completely obliterates the raw data.
To pull this deception off on a global scale, as I have mentioned before, requires the alarmists to deal with two inconvenient truths:
1. The warm periods in the 1930’s and 1940’s which were about the same as today
2. The current decline in temperature, just when the alarmists require a dramatic increase to match the rising CO2 levels.
What is needed out the back end of this alarmist process is a graph like we have from NCDC, where the 1930’s-1940’s warm periods are pushed colder and the current temps are pushed higher.
So, if I understand AJ correctly, the CRU scientists used raw data mixed in with rigged data and the rigged data helped confirm the theory of global warming, but when taking away the rigged data, the temperatures are the same as usual.
Well. Whatever data is there to be examined, needs to be examined and thoroughly. AJ is doing the scientific thing and testing the data. Now, for the major media to get to work and for the skeptics to start producing their findings, too.
Tigerhawk has a Climategate video that goes through the cast of villains.