Global Warming by Dummies


So much for the integrity of the Right over the Left in regards to self-serving negative characterization of the opposition and paranoid, reactionary delusions. Too bad that American Thinker has chosen to pander to partisans and religious zealots instead of sensible, moderate patriotic ideologues.

Climate Change or Global Warming is rather easy to debate once you take the time to learn a few basic facts and comprehend some elementary geophysics. Unfortunately the author of this piece seems to have skipped those steps and leaped directly into making an ass of his entire party. Instead of a rallying cry he has provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Maybe someone can persuade him to to change to the other party?

Criminalizing Weather-related Fatalities

Deaths from natural disasters are traditionally considered “acts of God,” or “acts of nature,” beyond human control. This view is being challenged in a French trial where prosecutors have charged a small-town mayor with manslaughter for deaths caused by storm flooding. The precedent of criminalizing weather-related deaths would delight climate-change activists who increasingly call for criminal trials of anyone skeptical of their agenda.

Right up front we see that the author is hunting snark; the entire piece is a poster-child for projecting thoughts and intentions into someone’s mind for the sole purpose of declaring those thoughts dangerous and threatening. With that said the other obvious point should be made: it’s the FRENCH! The only time the French do anything sensible is when you least expect it; the rest of the time, “ONLY the French!” seems to be a fairly common reaction to their antics, foreign and domestic. U. N. debates and Resolutions are one thing, the three-ring circus of French jurisprudence are quite another.

The mayor, Réné Marratier, was arrested after Cyclone Xynthia hit the French Atlantic coast in February 2010. The French State is seeking a four-year jail sentence for the drowning deaths of twenty-nine people in his town of La Faute-sur-Mer. The mayor’s lawyers describe the proposed sentence as “unprecedented and disproportionate.” After Hurricane Katrina, in comparison, no one suggested that Mayor Ray Nagin was criminally responsible for 1,800 deaths.

Mr. Wilson, I survived Hurricane Katrina. I knew Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina changed my life. Mr. Wilson, you’re no Katrina survivor. There actually were a few criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to outrageous misbehavior by city and parish officials. A strong case could be made for the same at the State AND Federal levels.

In the early 1990s, Mayor Marratier approved building permits for housing developments on a spit of sand between the Atlantic Ocean and the Lay River Estuary. The area is at or below sea level, protected by dunes and sea walls. According to a report from the Storm Surges Congress, the region historically had “low frequencies of storm surge related floods… and low levels of mortality.”

More evidence that the author has trouble relating to the idea of a flood zone. The problem that he fails to see is with modern, rather than pre-1950, residential construction.  A city like Miami planned and built today would be a criminal enterprise by any sensible standard. The entire core of the city sits on an artificial “island” that is a few feet above high tide, (some peripheral gutters flood twice a day.), at best. Eventually, Global Warming or no, a hurricane of at least force 3 will run right over that glorified sand-bar and Miami will simply cease to exist as a human habitation. If those hypothetical modern developers were still living afterwards I think that a criminal dock is the best place they could hope to wind up.

Vesuvius is always smoking, and the people never want to move. How does that make it a bad idea to use our understanding of the effects of weather and geology in preventing an endless succession of Pompeis and Herculaneums? If a Southern Californian Mayor approved an expansion of his town onto a hillside with “low” probability of a land-slip in “normal” extremes of weather said Mayor should be prosecuted if she is still around when the inevitable happens and a couple blocks of housing vanishes; even if the residents have time to evacuate, which is a game of Russian Roulette with 2 empty barrels in a seven shot revolver.

Furthermore, although the mayor had initial jurisdiction over building permits, the final stamp of approval was given by the Direction Départementale de l’équipement (DDE) in Paris. At the trial, the mayor’s lawyer asked indignantly how the prosecution could reproach his client, a small-town mayor with no expertise in coastal defense engineering, “for not having reviewed the work of specialists who have made it their career.”

Once again, please be patient; they’re FRENCH.

The fact that the houses were built in a low-lying area does not prove that the mayor showed disregard for the life and safety of the residents. 26% of the Netherlands is below sea level, land that is home to 60% of the population. The Dutch government constantly monitors dikes with high-tech equipment and satellites, repairing and improving them as needed.

In contrast, the dikes in La Faute-sur-Mer have been poorly maintained since Napoleon built them two centuries ago. The French government was aware of the weakness of their coastal defenses and after a smaller 1999 flood, funds were allocated to modernize and raise all dikes by one meter. Eleven years later only half the money had been spent, and 1,000 kilometers of dikes were known to be unsafe. The parallel to Hurricane Katrina, when the Army Corps of Engineers never performed work funded by Congress to improve levies in New Orleans, is striking.

Really? The facts say that the dikes and locks were stopped by continuous legal resistance by environmentalists.

Another factor that led to the high death count was the inappropriate design of the houses in the development. Until 1980, houses on the French coast had their living areas elevated by a few meters, as is common in many beach communities. The builders in La Faute-sur-mer, however, constructed single-story houses at ground level, responding to the needs of their clients, who preferred living on a single level without staircases. As flood waters rose, residents were unable to escape to upper floors.

It gets even more macabre: insurance companies offered rebates for the installation of metal shutters on the windows and doors to protect from wind damage. The elderly residents preferred shutters with electric motors over manual shutters. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that electric shutters don’t work during a power outage. When the flooding from Xynthia cut off power, people were trapped in their homes as water rose to the ceilings.

Finally, Meteo France, the equivalent of the National Weather Service, broadcast high wind warnings as Xynthia approached, encouraging residents to close the deadly shutters. The broadcast indicated potential flood danger with a small symbol on the television screen, which most viewers did not notice. Despite this flood warning, national and regional authorities did not issue an order to evacuate, leaving the decision to local officials.

In the aftermath of the storm, a proposal from the French State to bulldoze 674 homes in flood-prone areas was met with strong local resistance, evidence of support for the mayor’s pro-development stance.

Re-read the section above and try to be gentle. Remember, they’re French.

In sum, Mayor Marratier had opportunities to prevent the 29 deaths, but many other parties share responsibility. The prosecution, however, argues that the mayor’s failure to take appropriate action constitutes the crime of “involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence,” defined in American law as follows:

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so… which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

How about the text of the FRENCH law? That seems to me to be a tad more relevant to this issue.

A duty to act was established when “authorities” warned the mayor about flooding danger. France 24 summarizes: The mayor “is accused of ignoring warnings from the regional authorities by allowing construction in the low-lying area.” As we hear repeatedly, the science is settled; global warming causes rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and increased flooding.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, this whole screed was just so the author could ring in his theory about the ultimately nefarious intentions the Global Warming forces have furthered by way of the French being inimitably French.

In this case, the “regional authorities” acted correctly. Adaptation measures like improving dikes and rewriting building codes are entirely sensible, and should have been done. But this does not mitigate the danger of making it a crime to ignore the warnings of mid-level bureaucrats and climate activists. The potential for abuse is enormous. Warnings about global warming are often motivated by anti-capitalism and utopianism. If “authorities” warn that burning fossil fuels will lead to millions of deaths, will it be a crime to oppose a solar energy mandate? Even questioning the science of “anthropogenic climate disruption”, as it is now called, could be a criminal act since it influences politicians to vote against climate legislation.

If this sounds farfetched, consider a small sample of the totalitarian invective coming from mainstream climate-change figures:

  • George Mason University Professor Robert Nadeau writes in his essay, “Crimes Against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians”: “There is no doubt that the Big Lies told by the contrarians about climate science constitute a ‘widespread and systematic attack against’ all of humanity.”
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Those who contend that global warming ‘does not exist… are guilty of ‘a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.’”
  • David Suzuki wants climate skeptics to be “thrown in the slammer.”
  • James Hansen wants to put oil executives on trial for “high crimes against humanity.”
  • David Roberts wrote at Grist, “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

(Note the ratcheting up of the vilifications: skeptics are no longer simply “deniers” of the climate Holocaust, but active participants in a Nazi-like genocide.)

The “Call out the Climate Change Deniers” campaign created by Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action identifies 141 members of Congress who made public statements questioning global warming. If climate zealots adapt Xynthia tactics, these statements could become evidence for the prosecution.

Peter, Peter, they’re French, and your list of tin-hat wearers fails to justify your own aluminum headgear.

Forget Faith in Jesus or Mohammad – I Believe in Bugs Bunny


One thing seems to be consistent about religions all through human history; faith in the literal truth of the religion’s doctrines and dogmas is strongest in the least educated and least widely experienced, while the “elite” tend to range from religious beliefs with agnostic admissions to full-blown, cynical atheism.  This aspect of societal religion tends to favor the more partisan of each camp; the “masses” are peer-pressured to “show faith” and not think too much, while the “elite” are pressured in the same way to deny ALL aspects of deity and belief and God(s).  For those of us to who seeking understanding of God in a REAL sense, as opposed to a political or emotional/security sense, this is a bit of a hindrance.

To try to avoid the almost inevitable miscommunication that occurs when attempting to discuss God let me define my own terms; belief is not the same as faith; faith is something that causes grief and only causes good by accident; belief is what built civilization as we know it.

Faith is defined in Western culture as belief in something unseen, unproven, un-EVIDENCED other than by conflicting scriptural testimonies; this is a fool’s game at best!

Pseudo-religion has taken over much of the world’s “Faithful” by taking advantage of the tendency of the masses to desire a simple creed with an un-questioned authority to follow – just so that they do not have to ponder things that they do not have the experience or education to ponder with any confidence.

It is not enough, their preachers say, to believe in the bridge over the canyon, you must have and prove absolute faith that it is there…

The next sound you hear is the sound of crunching bones at the bottom of the canyon; and if the snake-oiled social-system-from-perdition that they are selling fails the test in the real world they have an escape clause; it is the fault of the poor soul who failed to “show enough faith”; you know who I mean, they are most likely a victim of the situation for which they are receiving (divine sanctioned) blame!

As you can see Virginia, I have never completely gotten over my desire to seek God, and lead others to know God better! Mea culpa; I still care. But, at some point I recognized that all the “Organized Religions” have long since been co-opted by pirates, parasites and reactionaries – who are their own enemies as well as everyone else’s; never thinking, believing then acting – just fighting the others while stealing as much power over people’s souls as possible.

Oh, let me point out that yes, Atheism is a faith; it takes a lot of ego-based, un-founded faith to KNOW that “our reality contains no form of anything that might be called God, period, debate closed; it is not even possible you know, why even bring it up in ‘intelligent’ company?”

Belief on the other hand is based on facts and experience and even intuition, if that intuition has a good track record; if every time you had something very bad happen in your life, and you had ignored a strong, distinct feeling to avoid the situation, eventually you would “believe” enough to listen; even though for years you might not have the “faith” to gamble on your premonitions being something other than a coincidental case of indigestion!

I have beliefs, I have very little faith; I like it that way.

Faith has to be blind; the blind tend to step on things, including other people’s toes, property, pets and even bridges that are NOT over canyons.

Of course many of the things that can fall under either label are good, or useful!

In a documentary film about the life and death of comedian Andy Kaufman (Man on the Moon) there is a scene where he is waiting to undergo a faith healing in India with full belief, from things he has seen and read and experienced, that he would find healing given by an honest healer. But instead, he sees from where his stretcher is laid that the “healer” is faking the procedure, and his belief dies.

Of course, the proponents of “faith” will tell us that if he had continued to ‘have FAITH ™’, instead of merely believing, the placebo effect would have worked with a holy head-start, and he might have found healing; I do not disagree but, I find that level of blind faith an evil, black magic; one that is less a slippery slope than a swift escalator to horrific abuses ( ones that we have seen over and over again in history when people forget the reality of their fellow man, and treat them solely according to their “faith.” Q.E.D. Virginia, Q.E.D.!

The bottom line is that true lover’s of God are recognized despite their religion, not because of it; mostly everyone stays for their entire life in the religion that they were born into; in some religions it can be fatal to become an Agnostic let alone change your religion; so much for an honest quest for God.

Yet there are good, godly, devout people wherever you find human hearts and human tears.  You can’t avoid that simple, obvious truth; unless you cling to “faith” in the notion that God made a special effort to make sure that you were born in the faith that you “happen” to believe in – all just so you could be “saved“! Of course, anyone not so favored was chosen by the ‘Infinite Power and Mercy of Deity’ to be born in an “un-Godly cult” that destines them to almost certain “damnation”!

If you do believe that this is true, then there is a quote from the Christians’ Bible that I believe is appropriate: “Jesus Wept“!

Declare Your Allegiance – Heretics Crusade Gear in Time for Christmas

World’s Biggest Beaver Dam, Damns Environmental Rhetoric


There are those who argue that the real environmental movement died after 1990 with the final amendment to the most successful piece of environmental legislation ever, the Clean Air Act.  IN three installments the CLA reversed decades of industrial and domestic pollution and halted rapid trends toward extinction for many species.

Since 1990, some would say 1970, the environmental movement has been more concerned with eliminating the embarrassingly successful human race than with learning what the real effects of our activity are and how to control them.

Given their acceptance of the science behind evolution I find it puzzling why Leftists consistently refuse to see Human activity as “natural”! With the same fervor a fanatical Christian has in declaring  homosexuals “against nature” the Leftist “environmentalist” sees only unnaturalness when Man is involved.

Since most predators keep strict territories it would not surprise me to learn that lions and tigers (and bears, oh my!) look on the herds they hunt as “theirs.” But, as humans we are supposed to “know better” and PETA tells us we are immoral for even daring to keep animals as pets or working animals.

And then there are the Global Warming idiots, folk who 30 years ago would have been stocking up for the coming Ice Age.  They find it thrilling to their self-hating souls to see ANY natural disaster that cannot be immediately traced to a natural source (and even some of those) as a weapon to wield in their battle against the human race.

Too bad for them that the natural world does not read Greenpeace periodicals!  Check out this AFP story about the…

“World’s biggest beaver dam discovered in northern Canada

AFP/HO – This 2008 handout photo courtesy of the Wood Buffalo National Park in Northern Alberta shows the world’s …

by Michel Comte and Jacques Lemieux Michel Comte And Jacques Lemieux Wed May 5, 7:46 pm ET

OTTAWA (AFP) – A Canadian ecologist has discovered the world’s largest beaver dam in a remote area of northern Alberta, an animal-made structure so large it is visible from space.

Researcher Jean Thie said Wednesday he used satellite imagery and Google Earth software to locate the dam, which is about 850 meters (2,800 feet) long on the southern edge of Wood Buffalo National Park …Construction of the dam likely started in the mid-1970s, said Thie, who made his discovery quite by accident while tracking melting permafrost in Canada’s far north.

"Several generations of beavers worked on it and it’s still growing," he told AFP in Ottawa.


…Thie said he recently identified two smaller dams sprouting at either side of the main dam. In 10 years, all three structures could merge into a mega-dam measuring just short of a kilometer in length, he said.

…Thie said he also found evidence that beavers were repopulating old habitats after being hunted extensively for pelts in past centuries.

"They’re invading their old territories in a remarkable way in Canada," he said. "I found huge dams throughout Canada, and beaver colonies with up to 100 of them in a square kilometer."

"They’re re-engineering the landscape," he said.”

Now wait a minute there Jean, do you mean these beavers have destroyed the habitats of virtually all the other species in what must total a full square kilometer?  And these “developments are springing up all over Canada? Why do I think get the feeling that if conditions for these beavers stayed ideal for a long time and they started to make serious inroads over large areas of Canada the Environmentalists would stand back and LET THEM, so great is their bias.

Personally I think it is great that the beavers are doing so well.  It just adds to my delight to know that they puncture TWO biases of the new environMental movement; that only humans can be destructive of the environment and that “global Warming” was threatening The Great White North’s animal populations.

LimBamian Politics 101: 2010 The Limbaugh-Obama Mentality Takes Hold

idylls king 0013

In 2010 we have fully entered a new era of politics that I call the Limbaugh-Obama, or LimBama period.

This era’s new mentality is neither Left nor Right wing. Instead it applies equally to both sides of the political spectrum,indeed all sides.  It is the ability to purport to believe in republican democracy and the Constitution, while firmly believing that political perfection is only prevented by the “Opposition” being allowed to participate in the legislative process.

The Constitution is replaced (ideologically at least, for the WORDs “The Constitution” will still ring out when freedom is but a memory) by the simple rule:

WE do not HAVE to play “fair” because WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS!

The because part of this unwritten commandment comes in many forms in the minds of partisans:

We defend the downtrodden and repressed

We have God (Allah) in our hearts and you are fooled by Satan

We serve the long-term interest of Human Survival

We serve Mother Earth

Yada, yada, yada… it is all a bunch of self serving baloney from minds so lost in group think that they can’t SEE the surface of the swamp let alone know their common sense had drowned!

It all only has ONE ‘because’:

Because WE WANT THE POWER, though we prove by our methods that we do not deserve it, and will surely abuse it for our selfish personal goals.

Politics: The Art of the Propagandist?


 It must be hard apologizing for the Democratic party to people in the middle nowadays.  It must really be hard when you yourself are, like “Campaign Obama”, merely pretending to have Liberal thoughts and feelings in head.  When you are so far to the left that you think the leaders of China are “reasonably enlightened” in their exercise of autocracy it is nearly impossible unless you are preaching to the choir as Thomas Friedman surely is in the following [dubious] opinion piece.

Here it is in all its Orwellian glory with commentary and, as a special feature, bolding and translation of double-talk provided by Poli-Speak 3.15 from SmellTheBull Inc.

“Our One-Party Democracy


Published: September 8, 2009

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult [Poli-Speak Trans: partisan and self-serving] but critically important [power and wealth consolidating] policies needed to move a society forward [Poli-Speak Trans: into our Lord Obama’s vision of Mao’s Promise] in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.”

Of course the leadership in China also heartlessly believe that any suffering by individuals in pursuit that goal is fully counterbalanced by the “Good Intentions” held in their soggy-warm hearts.  Truly, this is a talent the partisans on the Left an Right seem to envy.

“Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing.

Personally, on both subjects I don’t think the Dem leadership are playing either, at least not with a full deck.  It is not in the rules for them to declare every card THEY hold to be wild.

“With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste.”

In some cases that is true, and it is not just a waste it is sad and pathetic. But it is prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle these days. Most of the Republicans holding back are just waiting for the debates to be about REALITY, rather than a made up Marxist dream world of AGW and free doctors.

“Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.”

I had to think about that one for a while… Obama a CENTRIST? In what sense of the word?  I gave M. Friedman the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that he THINKS he is making sense when he says this…hmm, what a conundrum…

Then it hit me!  To the partisan mind, ANYONE who thinks ANYTHING that significantly deviates from the path that is “True and Good” is BAD. This cannot be overstated. It is something like the Islamic concept that ANYONE who is not Muslim, or at least following Islamic rules, is in an ACTIVE state of criminal rebellion against God Almighty and so, NOT a valid part of the political (or any other) process.

  I think that this must be Friedman’s mindset. To HIM Obama IS Centrist. That is because the VALID right wing of politics ends with SOCIALISTS in his world!!!  I guess the enlightened Chinese gentlemen he referred to are the Left-extreme in the World of Obamanations.

“Look at the climate/energy bill that came out of the House. Its sponsors had to work twice as hard to produce this breakthrough cap-and-trade legislation. Why? Because with basically no G.O.P. representatives willing to vote for any price on carbon that would stimulate investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, the sponsors had to rely entirely on Democrats — and that meant paying off coal-state and agriculture Democrats with pork.”

Al “the science is settled” Gore must be beaming in satisfaction at the thorough brainwashing job his “big Lie” has done on Mr. Friedman.

My dear Thomas, the legislation is only a “breakthrough” if you do not CARE if the science is correct or if the price would destroy the very country you claim to be protecting.  The conservatives are not willing to pay the farm to make CO2 a “pollutant” for purely political reasons. You might want to talk to someone who does NOT make their living pretending “Green Al” Gore is on anyone’s side but his own.  Remedial CO2  Global Warming 101

“Thank goodness, it is still a bill worth passing [Poli-Speak Trans: It may not do anything for CO2 but, Al & Co. can still steal trillions and Our Lord Obama can have the control He needs over our pathetic country to remake it in His Image]. But it could have been much better — and can be in the Senate. Just give me 8 to 10 Republicans ready to impose some price on carbon, and they can be leveraged against Democrats who want to water down the bill.”

So, the legislation is so vital, and so important that Obama cannot muster his majority party to support him and pass it HIS way?  There are so many factions in the party of GOOD people that Obama needs the votes of demon Right-Wingers to get it through untainted?  Wow, that makes as much sense as Saudi Arabia asking for, and thinking they NEED,  Jewish influence on votes in the UN in order to pass a resolution condemning Israel to oblivion!!!

Let me put it another way Tommy, do you ever THINK about what comes out of your mouth?

“China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don’t have and don’t want,” said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, “

I looked over Joe’s blog; nicely written propaganda.  He quotes FRAGMENTS of articles (you have to pay to read the whole thing) that don’t really say anything conclusive to support his flat-footed denials and assertions.  Nowhere but in the Holocaust Denial  and Creationist movements have I ever seen such consistent misstatements and distortions of reality.  Nowhere else in my experience can you find this constant exposure of one fact or two out of context supporting an enormous tissue of self-serving lies.

In this little gem of dissimulation we find Romm declaring the following:

1 The last decade has been the WARMEST ON RECORD

This sounds impressive, but the article does not mention that the records only started in 1880. Somehow the “scientists” authoring do not mention the obvious, in 1880 they might have had instruments of “modern accuracy” but, they only had a few, in a few locations – and that many of them would be affected by increasing temps from urban development over the 11 decades involved.

The data has to be “filtered” [poli-speak political scientist module trans: cooked] to account for the mix of rural and urban data station.  That this cooking inserts changes LARGER than the supposed warming trend is ignored.  It ignores the pseudo-random locations of the stations until the network was fully filled out by the 1070’s.  It also should be mentioned that there are MORE urban stations in the data set used by the GW crowd than rural ones. This automatically produces a “warm” result.

Bottom line though, you can’t draw any conclusion about global temperature trends by looking at 11 decades or 1/.0088th of the time since the end of the last glacial period.  When a supposed climate “scientist” tells you that he can average 5 to ten years temperatures and tell you if there is a warming trend but, not mention the SOLAR variance that has a cycle longer than ten years, you know that politics has trumped science.

2 high temperatures have been linked to lower (near what ours is now) CO2 levels in the Earth’s historical record than previously thought

Again, wow, scary… but it doesn’t tell you that the truly inconvenient truth in Gore’s film was that the historical record is CLEAR that temperature rises decades BEFORE the CO2 rises!! There IS a link but it is:

A) Temp up


B) CO2 up; probably from increases in the biosphere.

The trend continues as melting glaciers and increases in methane are discussed.  Each time isolated bits of data are used to “prove” complex and subtle trends that are close to if not within the limits of error individually.

A case in point is an article speaking about the dangers to the Amazon rainforest from a long term and severe LOSS of rainfall.  What you are not told is WHY the GW fanatics think that a RISE in the Earth’s temp will produce a DRIER Earth when all historical records say the opposite about a warm Earth!

So, THAT is the kind of “science” that Mr. Friedman uses to back up his politics. 

“The only way for us to match them is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.”

Not exactly my idea of a democracy: force the unwilling public to fund research for your pet projects by collecting punishing taxes on a pretend “pollutant” that coincidently are committed to your Messiah’s own projects!  It turns my stomach but, I have to admire the symmetry – collect billions to make the public pay out trillions thinking they can then escape the cycle; silly public.

“The same is true on health care. “The central mechanism through which Obama seeks to extend coverage and restrain costs is via new ‘exchanges,’ insurance clearinghouses, modeled on the plan Mitt Romney enacted when he was governor of Massachusetts,” noted Matt Miller, a former Clinton budget official and author of “The Tyranny of Dead Ideas.” “The idea is to let individuals access group coverage from private insurers, with subsidies for low earners.

And it is possible the president will seek to fund those subsidies, at least in part, with the idea John McCain ran on — by reducing the tax exemption for employer-provided health care. Can the Republicans even say yes to their own ideas, if they are absorbed by Obama? Without Obama being able to leverage some Republican votes, it is going to be very hard to get a good plan to cover all Americans with health care.

“Just because Obama is on a path to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing, does not mean the Republicans will embrace it — if it seems politically more attractive to scream ‘socialist,’ ” said Miller.”

One way to tell Pravda from truth is to look back at what your local sincere politician said about his goals and aims a few months back.  This article was written 5 months ago and not much now remains of the “core” of the plan as Friedman described it back in Sept.

“The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business.”

A little Econ 101 refresher for MR. Friedman: no matter wh0 cuts the checks the PEOPLE pay for healthcare.  Taking the inefficient present system and adding MORE inefficiency by handing it to the Gov. will hardly make it cheaper after all the costs “trickle down.”

“No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.”

Since when has the US been wanting for BRAINS as opposed to JOBS for college educated brains to fill?  And since when have US immigration laws prevented educated professionals from easy entry as opposed to unskilled folks from non-industrial lands?  Who knows, maybe if we stop demonizing CO2 and focus on REAL clean tech we might win in the end anyway.

““Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears,” said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College.”

Who can’t trust the objective opinion about globalization of someone who makes their living promoting it?  That is  like asking a Bishop if the Catholic church can be completely trusted!

“The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

Funny, I thought the public split about 50/50 Rep/Dem as usual.  Somehow, everyone else is unaware of this mass defection.  I guess that is what happens when you can’t tell your nap-time reality from your waking world.

A Tribute to Dr. Dana Cloud of the University of Texas

My dear Dana, you have truly made not only my day and week but quite possibly my month. What boon have you done me you ask? Well I am not quite sure how to put this Doctor Cloud but your over educated and DETERMINEDLY ignorant stance in defense of the indefensible overloads my humour hopper with raw materials for commentary about the silliness of you and all whom you call ally. I know this is rude but you measured the rope and put it around your neck and jumped. I just came along afterward to use your folly to create cautionary tales for those who still can be saved.

Truly, after the easy fun shredding your “rebuke” of David Horowitz, how wondrerful to find a whole blogrole of Radical, Progressive Thought to play in like a sandbox of the illogical.

On to the first victim: one Billie Murray, snickeringly enough considering today’s posts a Doc candidate in Communications Studies, will give us her devastatingly poignant tale of hate speech, violence and censorship….by the Left.

Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14April 21, 2009
The letter was written by Billie Murray, Ph.D. Candidate at UNC Chapel Hill. H

April 16, 2009

Dear Chancellor Thorp:

I want to express my concerns over the events of April 14, 2009. Currently, I am a Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest.

Specializing in what again? A specialist in the rhetoric of protest? Is that the same as Guru of Spin? Yes? O.K. lets move on then.

I have been a part of the UNC system for 6 years and a student and member of the UNC-Chapel Hill community for over 4 years. During that time I have witnessed some of UNC’s proudest, shining moments and consider those less shining to be opportunities for growth and progress. As a member of this community, a first-hand witness to the protest events on April 14th, and as a scholar of free speech issues, (GDeW) A scholar of Free Speech that does not appear to know free speech LAW) I believe it is my responsibility to address what I see as precisely one of those opportunities.

Billie knows what is good, and what is bad, and will now lay down the law as to what the chancellor SHOULD be thinking. Billie must have a thought police badge, that or delusions of relevance.

In the days leading up to April 14th, I reviewed a number of emails, websites and other literature about the Youth for Western Civilization, Tom Tancredo, and proposed responses to his presence and the presence of the YWC chapter on campus. I attended the event on the 14th as a researcher of social protest and free speech and to stand in solidarity with those students who felt threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo in our community.

As far as I can tell this means Billie went there mainly to study the effectiveness of the protest tactics while taking part in said protest.

During the protest, I watched as some of my students were roughly pushed to the ground by police officers, sprayed withpepper spray, and threatened with a taser.

Billie doesn’t mention until later that these students were loudly doing their best to disrupt the speech when the police did these things in an attempt to get the overgrown children to obey the law and the customs of all decent adults on the Right as well as the those on the Left.

I helped some students to the bathroom on the second floor of Bingham Hall to rinse the spray from their noses, mouths, and eyes. Needless to say I was afraid for their safety and my own.

Well when you break the law, violently disrespect your university and the guest speaking, and won’t back down until the police threaten to taser you, then YES Virginia, you SHOULD feel you have led them into an unsafe venture. That twinge you felt was maturity trying to be born.

The Students for a Democratic Society released a statement today detailing a side of this story that has been absent from police accounts, the Daily Tar Heel, and other mainstream media sources. In the interests of free speech, that side of the story deserves to be heard, and I encourage you to hear their voices.

That side has been missing to this point because it is so self serving and inane that no one with sense has brought it up til now. Thank you for correcting our oversight Billie!

I can’t say I wasn’t warned that something violent might occur at this event. A faculty member in my department who researches hate speech sent out an email requesting that anyone deciding to take part in the protest use caution because demonstrations against hate groups can increase the likelihood of violence. I suppose I should have known from my own extensive experience and research that this violence most often comes not from protestors(sic), but from the “protectors” of free speech. It seems only Mr. Tancredo’s free speech rights and safety were of concern on Tuesday, not the free speech rights and safety of your own students. The apology issued to Mr. Tancredo on the grounds that he felt threatened and was unable to be heard was out of place. An apology should be issued to those students who feel threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo and the violent silencing of their own voices at the hands of police officers.

Let me be short and sweet Billie, free speech is what you disrupted, you never had YOUR turn at the podium, and you prevented the dissenters with real questions from being heard.

Go reserve your own space and say what you will. That is free speech. Making sure an opinion you don’t agree with is not heard at all is simple censorship no matter who does it.

I am afraid you suffer from the arrogance of self assurance, You feel that you are so “right” that you can do no wrong in defense of it. If I were your chancellor I would assign you several semesters of remedial history to learn the many examples of why that is a bad idea.

Other arguments have surfaced since the events that a cursory review of the history of protest would reveal as commonplace. For example, protests just give those protested against the publicity they crave, and there are better ways to deal with these groups. But I ask you, what are these better ways? In your notice to students you suggest that: “There’s a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that’s often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.”

And this is bad to you? You get the hives if someone you don’t like actually gets to have their say? How fascist is that?

While I might agree that sometimes silence can be golden, Alice Walker reminds us that “no person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow.”

This demand for silence also reveals a misunderstanding about one of the main goals of protest, both historically and in the current moment, to disrupt. Protestors(sic) often seek to disrupt our comfort zones in order to bring light to injustices. Silence is not disruptive. Disruption requires volume, and they were loud. Yes, a window was broken. But there seems to be more concern over this small piece of damaged property than over the overreaction of police in spraying and threatening bodily harm to the students.

Silly Me! Here I thought legitimate protest was about communicating to the public urgent information. But all along it was supposed to be about disrupting legitimate speech in order to obtain political hegemony by intimidation and provocation. I feel SO STUPID. Or maybe it is Billie who is misunderstanding things?

Threats of criminal and Honor Court charges against the students who exercised their free speech rights is indicative of how effectively they embodied their power to express themselves and protect their community from the silencing effect of hate speech.

You mean the scheduled speech of a peaceful group was violently disrupted by illegal protest designed to stifle free expression, and the perpetrators then turned around and claimed victim status for not being held up as heroes for violating the civil rights of people with opinions of which they disapprove? That IS what you are saying, isn’t it Billie?

We often lament the lack of involvement of young people in politics and issues of importance. But how quick we have been to encourage their silence, demonize their expressions, chill their participation, and discipline and punish them when they have any real effect.

I would have hoped you would have noticed, at your advanced age, but adults tend to get down on children whenever they try to ape adult activities but do not understand reality and break laws and ,and begin to hurt people and property. They especially do not like children causing such chaos and then blaming the adults. In a nutshell – if you and your friends would stop behaving like asses and you would find that your opportunities for effective public discourse will expand exponentially.

Some have argued that it is not entirely clear that YWC or Mr. Tancredo are/were engaging in hate speech. Your own comments refer to his talk as being about “immigration.” However, a review of Mr. Tancredo’s past speeches and YWC literature makes it quite clear that a rhetoric of “anti-immigration” is being used to thinly disguise intolerance, racism, fear, and attacks on the cultural identities of people of color who should “assimilate” into Western Culture.

Why should any culture allow people who CHOOSE to come to their land, but refuse to follow the laws of the new culture, to demand a rightto create an indigestible foreign body in that culture? Do you similarly defend the rights of Americans to move to Saudi Arabia and vent their spleens all over the law because the law is misogynistic and homophobic? No? WHY THE HELL NOT?

It is quite clear that whatever hidden agendas might, or might not, be held by YWC, our dear Billie has no more to go on than her own desire to believe that their message is invalid and void of meaningful content. And “Our Local Radical” feels this is sufficient to raise dramatically the bar on banning disruptive protests.

As purveyors of higher education, we have a responsibility to our students to be more critical and discerning and to teach them to be more critical and discerning about the rhetoric to which they are exposed.

Shocking isn’t it? But I guess you have to be allowed to have your say in an open forum too, despite your self-serving lunacy. That is called free speech. If your view was valid, anyone who honestly FELT that YOUR message was hateful, not a hard argument to make, could rightly disrupt YOUR efforts to make yourself heard in an open forum. Can you spell hypocrisy? Knew you could.

You don’t need to be a rhetorical scholar to see the insidiousness of this rhetoric. Hate speech (or if you prefer to err on the side of simple racist rhetoric) does not promote social justice or any other democratic values. Hate speech silences free speech by humiliating, denigrating, instilling fear, and inciting violence.

We still have to establish that the goal of the group and speaker were to make hateful speeches with no practical content. All we have is YOUR feelings that their message is somehow so evil that to even hear it would taint the tender minds of “your” students and so constitute “hate speech“.

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech.

Yes, it has, by the bloody U.S. Supreme court, in accordance with decades and decades of concurring opinions.

While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others.

Why not just come right out and say “Free speech is for Me, not for Thee”, sign your PC-Nazi, Party card and be done with it. Do you really think your chancellor will be impressed by your stunning “logic” and arrogantly ignorant attitude of moral superiority?

The litmus test for these “better stories” include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are “different.”

We only can allow “free speech” that promotes tolerance? What about speech about intolerant people like racists and thugs and dictators? What about speech that condemns hateful speech? My dear Billie YOU are guilty of promoting an intolerant attitude toward this group and this speaker! Should YOU be suppressed in your ideal world? You created the incident, you created the only hate speech to be heard that day, and you now want to be lionized for all your efforts to “enlighten” the poor ignorant administration and petted over as a victim in a crises that you yourself precipitated in all its glorious fascist glamour.

Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

1) Who told YOU what these mysterious new goals of “a democracy” were, and assigned you as the gatekeeper against the expression of any ideas contrary to those goals? I thought that was for the democracy to decide on its own.

2) You are the one who seems to hate and fear the message they bring. Could it be that YOU are the one that needs to open your mind?

3) Your hate speech did indeed silence free speech, including that of DECENT members of your own general ideology. Aren’t you PROUD of yourself? Someone noticed you.

Mr. Tancredois a former Congressperson and Presidential candidate. Therefore, he is someone with a great deal of political power, who has had many and will continue to have many opportunities to have his voice heard. I do not lament his speech being disrupted in this particular instance.

Well, it seems Billie feels that Mr. Tancredo has had more of a platform than Billie feels he should be allowed. According to her inbred sense of “truth” it is evident that God Almighty wants Billie to rein in Mr. Tancredo’s arrogant and hateful activities until such time as the LEFT has had an opportunity to counter program any potential audiences.

What I do lament is that the students who attended Mr. Tancredo’s speech with the goal of engaging in dialogue or debate with him, did not get the opportunity to have their voices heard. Their voices are too often silenced it seems.

Yes Billie, your group’s protest silenced the voices of citizens, not The School or the student group or the speaker or the police; you.

However, it is my understanding that the groups who organized the protest have since been in conversation with these students to apologize and find productive ways to work in solidarity so as to avoid a similar clash of communication strategies in the future.

You call tactics to disallow a group’s ability to communicate at all a “communication strategy”? Do you consider the death penalty to be a rehabilitative measure?

But as a teacher of communication, (Sniggering laugh, Dr. Pepper in nose, wet keyboard; sorry, could NOT help it) I would say to those students desiring dialogue, I admire your resolve.

However Billie plans to thwart it if possible so nya nya nya!

However, to have a truly productive dialogue with someone holding contrary views, all must come to the table willing to respect the diversity of others, trust in their goodwill, and prepared to be honest and open-minded. I do not believe that given the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tancredo or members of the YWC, you would have found these conditions to be present.

Well that is for sure; you have demonstrated that you have no respect for this group, you have no trust for their stated, declare yourself to be untrustworthy (for righteous you claim) yourself, AND you have a closed mind & are proud of it.  As to your honesty, well anyone who commits a crime both legal, and then claims that it was a moral necessity forced on them by the opposition has a bit to learn about the subject.

In closing, I would like to ask you, Chancellor Thorp, to use this moment as an opportunity to truly hear your students’ diverse voices when they say to you that they will not be silent when racism threatens their community. Use this opportunity to forge a dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and university police so as to have more productive, peaceful interactions in the future that protect our students and their rights.

Yes chancellor Thorp, let your students know that unless they respect the universal rules of civil discourse they will be censured, and then if they persist in their brown shirt tactics, expelled as incorrigible troublemakers unable to “play nice with others”.

Billie Murray

Dear little Billie,  just what was respectful about that diatribe?