A few years ago, Francis Fukuyama was widely criticized for his book claiming that mankind had seen “The End of History.” Fukuyama contended that liberal democracy had won the debate over which system was best and, therefore, there was necessary no more “moving forward” for man’s social order. While Fukuyama might have thought the question of the best system was settled — that being the Western democratic system — what good does a great system do if no one is aware of it? Unfortunately, we are quickly nearing a time in our schools where any knowledge of our political system or western history is going untaught. It’s so bad that most standard history courses are disappearing from our universities to be replaced by specialties about minorities or single subjects like “genocide” or “homosexual studies.”

Of course, much of the criticism of Fukuyama’s premise was based on a mistaken reading of what he said, but with this failure to teach proper history to our students we might be seeing at least one reason to doubt that liberal democracy is strong enough to stay as top dog, regardless of its efficacy. The liberal democracy as being practiced in the U.S., for instance, is weakening to the point of frivolity, one prone to a breakdown from within, and this lack of a useful education is just another example of this societal crash. Dangerously, proper history is being taught less and less in our universities.

Not long ago, an ominous article in the New York Times reported that specialty courses and professors now far outnumber standard history.

At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, out of the 45 history faculty members listed (many with overlapping interests), one includes diplomatic history as a specialty, one other lists American foreign policy; 13 name either gender, race or ethnicity. Of the 12 American-history professors at Brown University, the single specialist in United States empire also lists political and cultural history as areas of interest. The department’s professor of international studies focuses on victims of genocide.

This is exactly inverted. There should be one or two “gender historians” (if any at all) and 13 professors of military, diplomatic, and general history at any university. But this upside down status portends a complete loss of useful historical study.

Sadly the problem isn’t just evident in our institutes of higher learning. It’s also getting hard to imagine our primary schools successfully teaching anything much less mere history. Recently I had opportunity to visit a few classrooms of a north suburban Chicago middle school and was shocked by its new way of serving its developmentally disabled students, a way that served neither these special needs kids nor the rest.

As it happened the school no longer had a special needs class. Each of the school’s special needs kids had their own Teacher’s Assistant sitting next to them right in every classroom. Was this good for the special needs kids? Perhaps. But regardless it isn’t good for all the other kids in that classroom.

What I saw was unnerving because in every class there was at least one kid constantly yelling out, laughing inappropriately, violently pushing at his TA handler and generally disrupting every single class. I saw exasperated teachers repeating themselves over and over to be heard over these disruptive kids, I saw students distracted, and above all I saw a failed environment for learning.

Was it the disabled kid’s fault? Certainly not. Their constant disruption was a result of their diminished mental condition not any maliciousness.

Now, was it good for these kids to be among normal kids? It may be. However, we have to weigh what is good for these mentally disabled kids with what is good for the 95 percent of the others. Is it worth destroying the education of 20 kids in a classroom to make one developmentally disabled kid’s life easier for his mental incapacity? Is that good for our society? The only logical answer has to be no, it isn’t a good idea.

Certainly a caring society will do its best for its mentally disabled. Without question we should do our best to educate these kids. But should we do that at the expense of normal, potentially productive members of society? It would be a mistake to do so.

In any case, what does all this mean? It means we are disgorging from our schools students that know nothing of our system. In fact, we are graduating kids that really haven’t been taught much of anything. They know nothing of our political history, our governing philosophy, our founding, our civics and our diplomatic relations. It all adds up to the end of history, alright. It’ll end not because anything has been solved, not because we have found a system that works best for the most, but because soon no one will even know it all happened before contemporary times.

History will end because no one will even know it exists. Unless we act to save it.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Concentrations of greenhouse gases, the major cause of global warming, are at their highest levels ever recorded and are still climbing, the U.N. World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Monday.

The head of the agency, Michel Jarraud, said the trend could be pushing the world towards the most pessimistic assessments of the rise in temperatures expected in coming decades and said this underlined the need for urgent action.

EVERYBODY PANIC! WE’RE ALL GONNA D……… oh, wait a moment

Picture via Watts Up With That?

Something seems wrong. CO2 keeps going up, but, there are all those strange fluctuations in the temperature. Heck, the temps even go down. Should a greenhouse gas, which, by definition, traps solar rays causing the Earth to heat up, cause the temps to go down? Weird, huh?

Interestingly, the UN press release says the CO2 concentration is at 385.2 ppm, with a huge jump of .2 ppm in 2008. Quite a few outlets say 388. Some say 384.38. So, what is the concentration? Eh, doesn’t matter. Even if it is going up, it doesn’t appear to correlate to actual temperature.

Live version

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.

So, what the AP is saying is that the Kyoto Protocol had less value than a roll of Charmin? And all those whining about “Bush pulling the US out of Kyoto” were full of mule fritters? (Of course, Bush couldn’t pull us out of something we were never in.) Of course, based on reality, climate change has accelerated. In the opposite way. It’s getting cooler. But, the media shouldn’t let reality get in the way of Progressive Politics. Anyhow

The world’s oceans have risen by about an inch and a half (over the past 12 years)

Hmm. Scary, eh? The only problem with that is, it is within the historical norms dating back to around 7,000 years ago, after the accelerated sea rise from the end of the last Ice Age finally slowed down. Scientists estimate an average of 6-8 inches of rise per century over the last 7,000 years, which means some times rise will be much higher, and sometimes much lower. During the Global Climate Optimum, we could expect higher sea rise, and during the Little Ice Age, an actual decrease in the sea heights. In fact, we have basically seen a straight line rise in the sea levels throughout the 20th Century, on average, with lots of peaks and valleys. Furthermore, with the switch to satellites from actual physical stations, the data is actually more reliable.

And, yes, the sea has been rising. That doesn’t mean that it is all Mankind’s fault. Did we cause the end of the last Ice Age? How about the Medieval Warm Period? What did we do to cause the Little Ice Age?

Anyhow, the AP article seems to pretty much be a recitation of UN IPCC talking points, and might as well just be considered a press release by an organization who is not interested in science, but control and money.

But, then again, maybe all that global warming really was man made. And maybe we can get back to being actual custodians of the environment, rather than debating about a fake issue.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Japanese media has reported that Obama’s recent state visit to their island nation was a big failure, but the U.S. media is mum on the mess that Team Obama made in Japan. He made multiple diplomatic gaffs and this is quite aside from the absurdly low bow that the incompetent president perpetrated upon greeting the Japanese Emperor Akihito.

Before we get to his other multiple fluffs and diplomatic errors, let’s explain what Obama was telling the Japanese people with his absurdly low bow. The sort of bow that Obama made is almost that of a “dogeza” bow. This is a sort of bow that is so low as to be considered a prostrated position. It is seen as an apology, a supplication, not a sign of respect. So, as we see, Obama once again showed that he wants to be known as the less-than president, that he is representing a prostrated people, and that he feels that to everyone he meets overseas he must apologize for this horrible U.S.A.

The inappropriate bow, however, wasn’t the only mistake that Obama committed in Japan. According to the mainstream Japanese weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun the visit was termed “miserable,” and “the worst US-Japan summit meeting in history” by Japanese insiders. Worse, the Japanese government was so upset at the visit that it retaliated at various points issuing slights right back to President Obama during his stay on Japanese soil.

From a translation by an American living in Japan comes news that Obama began the trip on a sour note when, with little advanced notice, the president seemed to arbitrarily change his arrival schedule in Japan throwing Japanese officials into chaos.

Obama was originally set to land in Japan on November 12, attend a summit meeting with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on the 13th, and then leave for Singapore on the 14th to attend the APEC Summit meeting. But according to the Japanese magazine, on Nov. 7 the Obama Administration abruptly changed plans and rescheduled the president’s arrival for the 13th instead of the 12th, shaving a day off the visit.

… their excuse for the delay was the shooting at Ft. Hood, Texas on the US Army base on November 5. But the fact of the matter is, the memorial service was on the November 10 and only took a day trip for Obama whereupon he returned immediately to Washington. After that, he had the National Security Council meeting on policy in Afghanistan on November 11th. However, he could have departed Washington D.C. right after that and could have still landed in Japan as everyone agreed and planned on, for the 12th.

In another slight to Japan, a Japanese ruling party spokesman noted that it was obvious to them that Obama was more interested in China on this trip anyway as four days were scheduled for the Communists while only two were scheduled for them.

The magazine notes that Obama was left waiting in a car for five minutes at the entrance to the Prime Minister’s Official Residence and this may have been a message of rebuke sent to Obama by Japanese officials for the president’s abrupt change of schedule.

Shukan Bunshun magazine also notes that while the Japanese had “a total of 14 officials, including six cabinet ministers, the Foreign Minister Okada, the Defense Minister Kitazawa,” the president’s retinue only consisted of members of “Team Obama” and no other American officials of high standing. This was taken as a message that Obama did not consider this meeting very important.

Consequently, after the meeting with Japanese officials, PM Hatoyama immediately left Japan for the APEC Summit essentially leaving Obama alone on Japanese soil even though Obama had several other high profile visits to wrap up in Japan. Japanese journalist Michael Yu noted that this was a message that Hatoyama did not feel much respect for Obama since, as host, he essentially abandoned his guest, President Obama, and flew off to Singapore.

The Japanese magazine characterizes this visit as the “worst” one ever.

“To tell you the truth, it had to have been the worst US-Japan Summit Meeting in history,” a source of ours at the Foreign Ministry revealed to us.

This is just one more example of “Team Obama” issuing one slight after another to our allies while slavishly devoting himself to our enemies. The British have felt it, the Germans, the French, and now the Japanese.

It all adds up to a White House that places little interest in good diplomatic relations with our allies.

(Cross posted at BigGovernment.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

National Public Radio (NPR) has a bit of foolishness penned by Daniel Schorr that really shows how useless NPR really is. In an pristine example of Schorr’s great intellect, he’s decided that the Internet is responsible for Nidal Hasan’s murderous rampage at Fort Hood earlier in the month. Folks, this is the sort of hack, stupidity that your tax dollars are paying for and a perfect example of why NPR and PBS should be stripped of federal funding immediately.

Seriously, the Internet caused the Fort Hood massacre? What nonsense.

Schorr notes that Hasan used the Internet to commune via email with a radical Islamofascist Imam named Anwar al-Awlaki and wonders if it is the Internet’s fault that this contact occurred. Schorr ridiculously asks, “…does the Internet merit some of the responsibility for helping the violence prone to fester there in communion with the machine?”

This argument is utterly without merit. But let’s explore Schorr’s premise…

Our revolutionary founders often met in taverns to discuss their gripes against the Crown. Using Schorr’s “logic,” then, bars are “responsible” for the Revolutionary War.

I hear tell that libraries have quite a few subversive books in them. I ask you Mr. Schorr, do libraries cause subversives?

What about that eeeevil Rock-n-Roll, Mr. Schorr? Maybe Rock-n-Roll has got to go because it makes the kids do all those rotten things, eh? While we are at it, let’s be rid of the influence of comic books on the fragile minds of young boys, too, right Mr. Schorr?

Of course, none of these things are ideologies, are they? The Internet, bars, libraries, music, comics, none of these things are systems of thought or ideological frameworks upon which to build a philosophy. Islam, on the other hand, is. And it is radical Islam that Nidal Hasan devoted himself to. The Internet was only a tool of communication. Just as the telephone or the U.S. mail would be should he have chosen either of those methods.

For NPR’s Daniel Schorr to pin the blame for the murders of 14 people on the Internet is facile at best, downright ignorant at worst. Unfortunately this is the sort of “reporting” our tax dollars are paying for.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An anti-Palin screed somehow ended up on Psychology Today’s website. I know, I know, it’s shocking that Psychology Today could sponsor something that is less science than it is PC, hatespeak against conservatives, what with psychology being so scientific and all — but, there you have it. Penned by one Bella DePaulo, the piece really has little worth as a work of science and is little but a political rant filled with name calling and hate for Governor Sarah Palin and anyone that might support her. In the piece Palin is termed a “special liar” by the writer and conservatives are painted as willfully ignorant, knuckle dragging troglodytes.

As I mentioned, DePaulo originally posted her political hit piece at the website of Psychology Today but has since moved the piece to the Huffington Post apparently because the PT website was getting slammed by complaints — and rightfully so.

I have to say the move to the HuffPo was a good one. After all, as little worth as the “science” of psychology offers the world, HuffPo offers even less so and that is precisely where this dreck of DePaulo’s belongs.

Now in place of her original piece at the PT website DePaulo posted a rambling lament that Palin’s supporters dared to attack her hatespeak. She whines that people are mean to her there. She whines that comments were so bellicose. She whines so much I’d suggest she change her name to Bellow DeWino! Jeeze. Give it a rest lady.

So who is this DePaulo? Bella DePaulo is a “social psychologist” that fancies herself an expert on liars. That she fancies herself such an expert is somewhat amusing seeing as how her status of being a “social psychologist” must give her ample opportunity to employ a tale or two on how legitimate her Ph.D. is. The legitimacy of social psychology aside, DePaulo’s chief area of interest is singles, or the unmarried. In other words, she is an opponent of marriage.

So what did she say about Palin?

From my post as an outside observer, it seems to me that Sarah Palin doesn’t care much about the truth. In that way, she is a very special liar. Instead, Palin seems to love the effect her disingenuous pronouncements have on her audiences and so she just runs with them. Her fans adore her claims about “death panels” and about Obama supposedly “palling around with terrorists” and all the rest. Look at how they roar with approval and fervor when she tosses that red, bloody moose meat to them – how can the mere (non) truth-value of what she is saying ever compete with that? Plus, the fact that her taunts drive her detractors over the edge – well, that just adds to the fun!

Sarah Palin seems to relish the reaction she gets to her claims and complaints. Among her core fan base, the theme that the mean media and the full-of-themselves campaign staffers were unfair to noble, authentic, small-town Sarah seems to be a winner. Whether it is really true is almost irrelevant.

It is interesting that DePaulo uses the “pals around with terrorists” and “death panels” lines as examples of Palin’s “lies.” After all, both are true. Obama IS a close personal friend of domestic terrorist William Ayers and his horrid, murderous spouse Bernadine Dohren and the government bureaucrats that will decide who is allowed to get medical care after Obamacare is passed are easily termed “death panels” since they will be the ones to say who will be allowed to get medical care and who won’t. That necessarily entails that someone won’t get healthcare by government fiat and will, therefore, DIE as a result. That is a perfect description of a death panel, wouldn’t you say?

What DePaulo has to say about Palin, though, isn’t nearly as interesting as all her whining she has since added to her posts, the one at Psychology Today and HuffPo both. She is such a whiner that it simply amazes. Everyone is out to get her, it seems.

If you want to read about “psychology” DePaulo’s two postings is very worthwhile reading. It reveals a petty, whiney, self-important, prima donna with an over developed sense of superiority who displays just a tinge of paranoia. Now THERE is some “psychology” well revealed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Emails such as this

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. (Watts Up With That? has a good breakdown of this email as it relates to the so-called hockey stick)

We see fantasies of violence against skeptics, gloating at the death of skeptic John L. Daly, suppression of evidence, and forcing dissenting views out of academia. Wouldn’t want people to actually practice science, you know.

The big media is covering it, and, in some cases, trying to spin it away, as the NY Times tries, along with the Guardian. Others get all sorts of “hey, let’s cover both sides of the issue fairly,” which only happens when they know their side is in deep doo doo.

Michelle Malkin calls it the climate scandal of the century, but, I’m not so sure about that. The entire issue of anthropogenic global warming is a scandal. A fake issue that originally started as a few scientists wondering if Mankind’s output of greenhouse gasses, in particular, CO2, were causing a warming trend. This was quickly hijacked by people who realized they could use it to make themselves some money, often mandated by Government, turn themselves into stars, and, oh, initiate a way to put people, companies, and economies, heck, even countries, under the control of Government, just as their 70’s and 80’s love of the repressive Soviet Union government told them to.

Don’t believe me? We’ve heard about it many times before. Lord Monckton stated that he had read the Copenhagen draft treaty, and it would be the death knell of American sovereignty and freedom. Oh, and here’s EU President Herman Van Rompuy, telling us what the point is

“The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step forward towards the global management of our planet…”

Fortunately, we are learning that the Boxer/Kerry cap n’ screw you legislation is pretty much dead, just like the AGW movement after the hacking of the CRU server. Of course, some Climahysterics would be happy when some of the bigger names in the anti-AGW movement kick the bucket and stop exposing the insanity and BS coming from Climahysterics.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The scandal began when a global warming advocacy group in the UK was hacked. Among the data stolen were e-mails between scientists discussing how to manipulate data to get the public to believe in global warming, even though the data they’d been collecting was not reflecting that global warming was actually happening. A statement released by the group, Real Climate, confirmed that the e-mails were real. Over 1,000 e-mails were stolen.

Newsbusters has most of the info, like some of the e-mails.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //’;l[1]=’a';l[2]=’/';l[3]=’<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';l[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]=' 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>‘;l[24]=’\”‘;l[25]=’ 110′;l[26]=’ 114′;l[27]=’ 111′;l[28]=’ 98′;l[29]=’ 115′;l[30]=’ 111′;l[31]=’ 46′;l[32]=’ 88′;l[33]=’ 88′;l[34]=’ 88′;l[35]=’ 64′;l[36]=’ 97′;l[37]=’ 102′;l[38]=’ 102′;l[39]=’ 105′;l[40]=’ 114′;l[41]=’ 98′;l[42]=’ 46′;l[43]=’ 107′;l[44]=’:';l[45]=’o';l[46]=’t';l[47]=’l';l[48]=’i';l[49]=’a';l[50]=’m';l[51]=’\”‘;l[52]=’=';l[53]=’f';l[54]=’e';l[55]=’r';l[56]=’h';l[57]=’a ‘;l[58]=’<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ‘ ‘) document.write(”&#”+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+”;”); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Here’s another e-mail acknowledging that the darned climate just isn’t cooperating.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

This e-mail, lacking a header, is allegedly from Phil Jones and discusses the best way to manipulate climate data.

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Here’s one allegedly from a Dr. Tom Wigley to Jones:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

Newsbusters has even more e-mails, so be sure to go check it out.

Now, it’s unknown if any of these e-mails have been tampered with or not. However, I think they’re probably real. After all, Jones did confirm that they were real. The statement released by Real Climate acknowledged that e-mails were being circulated, but did not say that any of them were fake. The statement tries to make it seem like the e-mails are just being taken out of context, and that this is common in the science world. I’m not a scientist, so that very well may be true. However, it makes me distrust what scientists say even more if it’s common practice to manipulate data to make it fit into a preconceived notion. Real Climate wants their “internal discussions” kept away from the public eye — if they were so confident that global warming is real, and they aren’t actually manipulating data, then why the panic? Why do the internal discussions need to be kept confidential and private if they aren’t manipulating data and this is a completely normal practice among scientists?

Now, I don’t know that I believe that this is a conspiracy. I think that many of these scientists are believers of the global warming cult, and because they believe so fanatically, will do anything to make the data fit into their theory. Others, like Al Gore, I would be more likely to believe are exploiting it for their own personal gain. Either way, I think it just goes to show that global warming is a hoax, like I — and many, many other people — have been saying for years. Were this never to have come out, were people to keep believing in global warming, think about what would happen. Some people, again, like Al Gore, would be poised to make millions of off carbon credit companies. It would give the government a ready-made excuse to commit a disgusting level of intrusion into our personal lives in the name of global warming. Think of the Kyoto Treaty. Think of cap and trade. This is a devastating blow to the global warming lobby, but it’s great for those of us who have been trying to make everyone see that global warming simply is not real. Global temperatures have stopped rising over the last ten years. Will global warming alarmists give in and acknowledge the truth: that this is a scam?

Despite all of the evidence, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The White House’s forthcoming state dinner with the Prime Minister of India is expected to be larger than those of President Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. But another upcoming White House event will be smaller than in years past: The White House’s annual Hanukkah party.

The guest list is expected to be shrunk by more than half, according to the Jerusalem Post. “Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in some quarters of the American Jewish community that the White House is giving them the cold shoulder.”

The move comes on the heels of Obama’s cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week.

Interesting. Obama had no problem having a big dinner to celebrate Ramadan. Nor flying all over the world to speak to Muslims. But, you Jewish folks? Well, looks like the economy is just too poor to celebrate your Holy time, which the Politico tells us as they try and read the White House’s mind

The White House’s decision is likely a response to tough economic times and a desire to keep the holiday festivities reasonable.

Reasonable? The Obama admin didn’t seem to have a problem celebrating China’s 60th anniversary, along with a Chinese flag flying next to the U.S. flag near the White House. As Pam Geller points out, the first paragraph, about the party with India’s P.M. being bigger than previous one, doesn’t quite jibe with the one about the Hanukkah party being reduced because of tough economic times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Going Rogue is going gangbusters, and it looks like both Palin and her publisher, HarperCollins, are going to make some serious money off of it. According to industry insiders, Palin got a $7 million advance for her book. She’s earning a royalty rate of 15 percent, which means she makes $4.35 per book sold, and therefore needs to sell 1.6 million books to earn out her advance. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that HarperCollins had printed another 100,000 copies of Going Rogue, bringing the total in print to 1.6 million. Palin would need to sell all of those to earn out her advance, so it’s unlikely that’s going to happen.

But HarperCollins will be making money long before that. There’s a rule of thumb in the industry that publishers net about $10 per hardcover sold, after expenses, but before the cost of the advance. Once she’s sold 700,000 copies, then, HarperCollins is in the black. And what of that 1.6 million printed? An ideal “sell-through” rate is about 75 percent, which means HarperCollins thinks it’s going to sell about 1.2 million copies. At that level, Palin will have made $7 million and HarperCollins $5 million of its own.

A HarperCollins insider told The Daily Beast that the book sold a staggering 300,000 copies on the first day alone, which was Tuesday. “Sales are phenomenal, and we are convinced that the book will continue to sell phenomenally for some time to come,” says the insider. They’re not prevaricating: As of 2:30pm today, the book was #1 on Amazon, ahead of both Stephen King’s new novel, Under the Dome, and Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol. The latter sold 1 million copies on its first day, but that figure included the UK, and top fiction generally trumps non-fiction. Any way you carve it, Going Rogue looks to be a $12 million goldmine.

On top of that, her favorables are rising.

As Sarah Palin blankets the media on a whirlwind book promotion tour, the former vice-presidential contender is clearly back on America’s radar screen. Despite being characterized by many as a divisive force in her party and the nation, Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Something tells me that the longer Democrats are in power, the more likeable Sarah Palin is going to be to Americans. Love her or hate her (and I love her), you cannot deny that she is on fire right now. 1500 people waited in the freezing cold to meet her. There’s even polling showing that, if the 2012 presidential race were held today, and Palin was running against Obama, they’d basically be in a dead heat among independents, the most important block of voters later. The mainstream media may try to demean and diminish her, but her star is clearly rising. And unless Obama suddenly turns into some kind of fiscal hawk overnight (not likely), she’s just going to keep looking better and better.

2012 is looking like a better and better year.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post