January 20, 2012

Newtmentum

Everyone has been a buzz about Newt’s debate performance last night and the polls are showing him on a roll in SC. Intrade has him at 70% to win tommorow which will change the game. The endorsements are rolling in with a quasi-endorsement from Palin, Perry yesterday, and now Michael Reagan and Chuck Norris! For the time being things are looking up for Newt.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 7:42 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Debate, Elections, News, Newt Gingrich, Polls, Primary

Trackback URL:

Rick Santorum is Tired of People Wanting a Small Government That Leaves People Alone

In last night’s debate Rick Santorum made a case that abortion should be a federal issue against Ron Paul’s philosophy that it should be a state issue. OK. He made some good points on this by citing the Declaration of Independence and stuff. Ron Paul said we deal with all other violent crimes on the state level. Good debate. One issue. But is a big Federal government more of an overall philosophy of Santorum? It sounds like it in this video.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.
They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
- Rick Santorum

Radical individualism? What would that be? Freedom? I don’t want someone to legislate morality and push their social beliefs from the federal level on me. The Constitution only gives the federal government power over what it lists and the rest is reserved for the states. It seems like all the other candidates understand this. Where in the world did people get this idea that we don’t want the Federal government in our bedrooms or want low taxes? Radical individualists!

I don’t want to smear this guy. Before I saw this I thought he was a good conservative option. Is this video out of context? Just wondering…

Meanwhile Santorum talks about how much more consistent his history is than his rivals.

Hat tip: The Green Room

Email This

Posted by Jay at 10:55 am | Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under 10th Amendment, Abortion, Debate, Elections, News, Rick Santorum, State Government, States Rights, U.S. Constitution, Video

Trackback URL:

FBI Shuts Down File Sharing Site Megaupload – We Need SOPA And PIPA Why?

In a bit of serendipity, the day after the big Internet protest against SOPA and PIPA the FBI acts on the powers already granted under the law to shut down a massive file sharing site

(NY Times) In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.

Megaupload, one of the most popular so-called locker services on the Internet, allowed users to anonymously transfer large files like movies and music. Media companies have long accused it of abetting copyright infringement on a vast scale. In a grand jury indictment, Megaupload is accused of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions.

Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder, Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz), have been arrested in New Zealand, the authorities said; the three others remain at large. Each of the seven people — who the indictment said were members of a criminal group it called “Mega Conspiracy” — is charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. The charges could result in more than 20 years in prison.

So, we apparently have laws that allow Government to shut down rogue websites which exist solely to share material, much of which is copyrighted. What would SOPA and PIPA do extra? And that is the concern of opponents of the S&P bills. S&P is a vast overreach by government, which would give a bloated, faceless, and unelected bureaucracy the power to police the Internet. Where would one go if they nailed your website for an explanation and relief?

Meanwhile, Anonymous went on a “revenge spree” and took down the websites of the FBI, every domain associated with the DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, EMI, the US Copyright office, and Universal Music, among others. On one hand, this seems extreme: Megaupload was, in fact, stealing content, denying the copyright holders the residuals for their intellectual property, and making tons of money themselves. How would they feel if they wrote a popular song and were denied earnings due to being shared?

On the other hand, via Scared Monkeys, consider

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which defends free speech and digital rights online, said in a statement that, “This kind of application of international criminal procedures to Internet policy issues sets a terrifying precedent. If the United States can seize a Dutch citizen in New Zealand over a copyright claim, what is next?”

Meanwhile, Cracked writer Soren Bowie points out the only argument in favor of SOPA/PIPA . Read carefully.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:03 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under DoJ, FBI, Internet, News, Property Rights

Trackback URL:

Cold And Aloof President Blames Media For Creating Cold And Aloof Image

Which is rather strange, because the media created an image that Barack H. Obama was the Messiah (via Ace)

(Politico) President Obama blames the press for creating the image that he’s aloof and disconnected from the rest of Washington, insisting in a new interview that he’s just more interested in spending time with his family than in exchanging pleasantries with strangers.

“My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties and, as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof,” Obama said in an interview with Time Magazine released Thursday.

“The fact is, I’ve got a 13-year-old and 10-year-old daughter. And so, no, Michelle and I don’t do the social scene, because as busy as we are, we have a limited amount of time, and we want to be good parents at a time that’s vitally important for our kids.”

Um, what? This guy has party after party, especially during his first year in office, fiddling while America burned. He’s not disconnected from Washington: he’s disconnected from the American People. Anyhow, being cold and aloof isn’t a media created image, it’s an Obama created image, though I’d say it’s more like narcissistic, petty, cold, and aloof. Bush didn’t spend that much time with the media, and was never portrayed as “cold and aloof.” He was generally portrayed as “caring and personable”, no matter how much the media wanted to portray him as a guy who chewed on cute and fuzzy puppies.

Seriously, though, how can one call Obama cold and aloof when so many of the pictures of Obama look like

But, how can one call Obama cold and aloof? He’s certainly personable with lots of people who attend fundraisers. He has a great time playing golf with friends seemingly half the weekends of the year. He’s surely a nice guy hobnobbing with the folks on Martha’s Vineyard and at the area he rents expensive houses in Hawaii.

As Ace points out

Here’s a reason for Obama’s “aloofness:” When you are an unmitigated failure, you cannot discuss the real world, and must increasingly withdraw into a world of theory and projection only, because the facts of the real world are hostile to you.

Well, yeah, there’s that, but, remember, he actually lets his dog Bo take plane trips without the Obamas, so he can’t be cold, aloof, and disconnected.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:37 am | Comments Off | Trackback (1)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, News

Trackback URL:

Links

Five Year Blogging Anniversary: Ramos and Compean to Newt’s Ethics | Maggie's Notebook pinged this post.

Video: Gingrich Rips Media

CNN opened the debate last night with a question to Newt about his x-wife’s claim he asked for an open marriage which he said is false. He ripped into the debate moderator and the media in general with this homerun. Many are saying he won the debate in the first five minutes.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 7:21 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under CNN, Debate, Elections, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Newt Gingrich, Primary, Video

Trackback URL:

January 19, 2012

Herman Cain Endorses “The People”

I thought this was pretty cool. “This revolution is gonna have to be driven from the bottoms up!” Anyway, as for this year’s nomination process this means nothing. An endorsement tonight of Gingrich would probably be criticized and spun. I’m not sure what it means though. He is going to deliver the TEA Party Express’s State of the Union speech next week. No telling what is up his sleeve. Perhaps he will become a spokesman for tax reform. Maybe he will go around spreading a message like Sarah Palin is doing. Who knows, but he isn’t gone.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 7:27 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Elections, News, Tea Parties, Video

Trackback URL:

Perry Drops Out and Endorses Gingrich

Since this is quickly becoming old news let me sum it up. Perry who was polling at 2 % in South Carolina just dropped out and endorsed Newt Gingrich who is now leading Romney 33 to 31 according to Rasmussen. While this could help take Gingrich over the edge to win South Carolina, ABC decided to drop in with an interview of his bitter x-wife who claims Newt asked her for an open marriage when it was revealed he had an affair. This isn’t anything new, but it could be news to some people and that could have a negative effect on his campaign for sure. We will see how he handles this and what tonight’s debate does for him. The debates have been his strength. Will the media get away with Herman Caining Newt? Meanwhile it looks like the majority of the Tea Party are finally deciding on Newt as the candidate they want to get behind.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 3:35 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Debate, Elections, Mitt Romney, News, Newt Gingrich, Polls, Primary, Tea Parties

Trackback URL:

Bummer: NY Times Green Learns The “Pleasures And Pitfalls” Of Solar

Mostly, the Times writer, Craig Leisher, learns the pitfalls

For our year living in the woods of Maine, I wanted a place where I could see and hear wildlife. Someplace both quiet and remote.

In our part of Maine, quiet and remote means off the electrical grid. Our summer rental cabin had no electricity except for a small generator to power the water pump and a 20-watt solar panel connected to a 12-volt battery powering our laptop and cellphone. The winter rental cabin where we are now has a diesel generator and a battery bank.

Having a diesel rumbling in the background is not the Maine woods experience I wanted. Too noisy. Too smelly. Too OPEC.

That actually sounds like a good idea, and, as an environmentalist myself, I’d want to hear the sounds of nature, too. I love the early mornings on the back deck near a pond running off the Neuse River here in Raleigh, the quiet punctuated with the calls of wildlife. Anyhow, Craig becomes an Internet expert on ….. solar! And

Once in Maine, I found a local expert on solar, asked for a detailed cost estimate, cross-checked it with people who knew solar and drained $6,000 from our savings to install six modules (panels) totaling 1,410 watts of power.

Then the real learning started.

Well, that $6k drop on panels is a wee bit more than Craig might have spent if the cabin was hooked up to the regular power grid, but, again, I do not think solar is a Bad Idea, and it’s much better, in my opinion, to search for solutions to single homes/small groups of homes than the huge solar farms which require large swaths of clear cut land. Alas

I learned that installed capacity is different from actual energy generated. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that solar power production in the ZIP code for our system over the last four months in an average weather year should be 441 kilowatt hours. Our system produced 305 kilowatt hours in those four months — 31 percent less.

and

I learned that energy generated is not the same as energy that can be used. When the solar panels convert photons to electrons, it’s DC power, but we need AC power. The DC power is stored in a large battery bank, and an inverter switches it to AC, losing about 23 percent of the power generated in the process.

and finally

The bottom line is that our solar production provides only 46 percent of what we need, and what we need is minimal.

Therefore, Craig runs the diesel generator a bit. Because solar is not ready for prime-time, even if he doubled the number of panels. But, again, he is on to something, namely, aim solar for personal ownership and usage.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:51 am | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Alternative Energy, Energy, New York Times, News

Trackback URL:

Liberal Washington Post Thinks Keystone XL Decision A Bad One

Rather a surprising editorial from the Washington Post. After discussing the background of Keystone XL and Obama’s decision, we get

We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Surely the Obama administration didn’t have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest — that’s the standard State was supposed to apply — and force the company to start all over again.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel U.S. refineries produce from Canada’s bitumen might be exported elsewhere. But even if that’s true, why force those refineries to obtain their crude from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest. But shouldn’t environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

Interesting. The WP takes a liberal view and still finds that this was a Bad Decision. Jobs are jobs, and getting oil from Canada is much better than getting it from the Middle East. But, this was purely a political decision. The cost-risk analysis clearly shows that Keystone XL is good the for the US national interest – does anyone else find it weird that bureaucrats involved with international diplomacy are in charge of making the recommendation for Keystone XL? – and would provide the country with inexpensive oil and good paying jobs. Obama had to punt on this because his liberal base was up in arms over the issue (despite refusing to give up their fossil fuel burning automobiles) because he needs the re-election money. He knows his unhinged and hypocritical base will still vote for him, regardless, but, if they are mad, the might not give him that $3 he always asks for many, many times.

The WP has a better idea to reduce America’s fossil fuel addiction: “establishing higher gas prices.” Which would substantially increase the cost of goods and cost of living at the same time, something they forgot to mention.

Of course, the NY Times (hearts) the Obama decision, and dives into La La Land

The foolish requirement that Mr. Obama issue a decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21 — cynically inserted into the payroll tax bill passed in December — could never be met given the need for a thorough environmental study before any judgment is made.

Except, there have already been plenty of environmental studies, which, if you refer back to the WP excerpt, 2nd paragraph, we learn that Keystone XL would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” How many studies need to be done?

Republicans intent on scoring campaign points immediately repeated their fallacious cries that “tens of thousands of jobs” would be lost by not instantly approving the project. They made no mention of the risks inherent in the project: harm to the Canadian boreal forests and threats to water supplies in the Midwest. Bipartisan opposition to the pipeline has notably been led by Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican.

Except, that oil and some pipeline will be built. Either America will get it, or China will get it.

The Calgary Sun, no exactly a bastion of Conservative thought, understands that Obama’s decision is all about one job: Obama’s.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:26 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, News

Trackback URL:

January 18, 2012

Obama’s Dream Debate

I thought this Newt ad was pretty funny.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 8:00 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Debate, Elections, Newt Gingrich, Video

Trackback URL:

Come On, People! Poor Men Do Not Become President

-By Warner Todd Huston

I have to say, I am getting a bit sick and tired of this nonsensical lament about how rotten it is that those running for president are “rich” people. Stop it right now, America. The fact is that we’ve never really had a poor man as president so talking about it as if it is news that rich people often seek the presidency is stupid. Not only that, but today it is impossible for a poor or even middle class man to run for president anyway, so get this populist silliness out of your minds right this instant.

The latest in this onslaught of populist foolishness is the New York Times (unsurprisingly) with an article full of serious tones on how hard it is going to be for two Harvard educated, Richie-Riches like Obama and Romney to win over those “blue collar Americans.”

“Both are Harvard-educated millionaires,” The Times begins sonorously. “Both have been criticized as elitist and technocratic. Both have struggled to handle the populist anger coursing through politics.”

Of course, much of that anger is fostered by the Old Media constantly harping on that “anger” by writing daily stories indulging themes of class warfare as if it is some sort of legitimate political discussion in this, a capitalist-based society.

The worst part about this line of discussion is that it seems to suppose that it is all somehow “news” that rich people run for president. Not only have rich people always been the most common candidates for the White House, but the simple fact of the matter is we’ve never had a dirt poor president. Further, it is virtually impossible that we could — especially today.

So, let’s just get over this silly discussion, shall we?

Now, we have had several presidents that weren’t in the upper quintile of America’s rich, to be sure. But we’ve never had a president that could be classified as without financial support when he took office. We also haven’t even had a president who could have been considered lower class or even middle class when he started his campaign.

Certainly not every president was a millionaire (even adjusted for the economics of his day), but the largest portion were very rich. And those that weren’t extremely rich in their day (like Lincoln, for instance) were still far richer than the average American (like Lincoln, for instance). Additionally, those that weren’t themselves rich had the sort of lives that running for office did not negatively impinge on their own personal livelihood.

Let’s take Woodrow Wilson, for instance. He was not wealthy, mind you, but he also had few living expenses to worry about. As president of Princeton and Governor of New Jersey he was given a place to live. When he became president he then had the White House to live in. He had a series of books from which he made not inconsiderable sums and he was paid in a higher income bracket for his work than the average American of his day. The lowest one could consider Wilson is upper middle class, but his support system of colleges and government positions often removed from him the need to pay mortgages and other living expenses.

Calvin Coolidge was also not a rich man. But his father was and this helped Calvin early in life go to college and become an attorney. He made a nice living from his writing and owned some nice real estate free and clear of debt. He was also at the least upper middle class if not well off.

You see, even our poorest presidents still owned land and businesses and were far from penury while in office The worst of the lot seems to have been McKinley and Grant. McKinley once went bankrupt during the depression of 1893 and Grant’s finances were in bad shape until, at the end of his life, he wrote the well-received autobiography that made he and his family a tidy sum.

But let’s ask how a poor or even middle class person could run for president?

How many of you can afford to drop whatever it is you do for a living to go traipsing about the country for two or three years or more in order to run a nation-wide campaign for the White House? How many middle class (or poor) people can afford to stop making a living to campaign and can afford to stop worrying about their mortgage, their school loans, their water bill, their car insurance — in short how many middle class folks can afford to run for office and forget about their own personal and family expenses back home so that they can spend enough time on the campaign trail to build a voter base big enough to allow them to win both the primaries and a general election?

Let’s also not forget that if someone else come in to help the candidate’s family and pay their expenses while he runs for office, everyone would be crying about how that candidate was bought by whom ever it was that paid his bills while he ran. Plus, it’s illegal anyway!

We need to remember that our presidents have usually been leading national figures, anyway. Rarely do people become leading national figures from the depths of the poor house! Usually they are people that have attained some high station in life and America’s presidents have nearly all been someone of national renown. Our presidents were not notorious, but notable and success breeds riches in most cases. Let’s face it, people that rise to the heights of national prominence usually have more than a few shekels to rub together! They can afford to run for president and nearly all of our presidents were in that fortunate situation.

And today? Today it takes even more money to run for president because campaign finance laws are so Byzantine that self-funders are the first ones that have the capability to step up to the plate. And thanks to whiners like John McCain, we’ve set up a system where rich people are nearly the only ones that can afford to run for president!

Also consider this: do we want a person that couldn’t even make enough money for his family to be secure while he runs for office to become our president? Do we want a guy that can’t even succeed at that minimum rate of success living in the White House and guiding our nation?

Here is another thing to consider. Our founders meant the world of politics to be one of public service. To do that one must have already made his nut in life and had found himself with enough time on his hands and money in the bank to serve the country instead of serving himself.

Do we want people that need to grub for money to be president? Wouldn’t we be just as afraid that such a person would scramble to enrich himself while in office so that once out of office he had enough to live on? Wouldn’t this invite corruption?

Lastly, why is it so bad to want the best, brightest and most successful people to be our leaders? There was a day when being successful was something people admired. But that was before the media decided that capitalism was evil and rich people had to be both pilloried and plundered at the same time (and the logical end game of that meme is personified in the anti-capitalist, anti-success, anti-American Barack Obama).

The whole point here is to ask only this question: if you don’t want evil rich people to run for president, who can run for president and how do you expect them to do it?

So, come on, people. Stop this incessant whining about rich people running for office. It really is a stupid thing to focus on.

Email This

Posted by Warner Todd Huston at 12:44 pm | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Anti-Capitalism, Campaign contributions, Elections, History, Liberal Media/Bias, Media Bias, New York Times, News, President, Stupidity, class warfare, elitism

Trackback URL:

Know What Obama’s Jobs Council Recommended? Drilling For Oil

Google “oil job creation” and you will find tons of stories how some states, such as North Dakota, are seeing such an influx of new employees that the housing market cannot keep up. That these new employees have money to spend. Oh, and that there are tons of new employees. And then we get

(Global Warming Policy Foundation) President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil and gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines. “[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.

Again, I’m not a real big fan of oil, it’s kinda dirty and not particularly good for the environment (I’m not talking about CO2, but real pollutants), but, I live in Reality Land where the world runs on oil at this time, and reducing the amounts will not see a unicorn magically crap out viable renewable methods. Seeing more oil based projects increases employment with good paying jobs, and these good paying jobs lead to, yes, spreading the wealth. I had a post drafted a few months ago which I never posted about the North Dakota oil workers getting so much money that they were snapping up property. In Arizona.

(Washington Times) House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the presidential jobs council’s recommendations for expanding domestic energy production, cutting government red tape and overhauling business taxes are exactly the policies passed by the House in the past year. Most of those bills have stalled in the Senate.

White House Spokesweasel Jay Carney said that the Jobs Council wasn’t referring to the Keystone XL pipeline specifically, which is kinda true, but, we all can see that it factors in. Canada is not going to be patient forever, as China is knocking on the door, wanting that oil. I suspect that Canada will make no decision till the day after the general election in November to make a decision.

Getting our own oil, as well as getting it from Canada, will increase employment, increase wages, and reduce our dependence on oil from countries around the world which are run by dictators and Islamists. Security.

We all know that Obama will blow off these recommendations, otherwise, his base will revolt and drive to D.C. in fossil fueled vehicles and take unnecessary fossil fueled flights to protest.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 8:07 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Barack Obama, Coal/Energy Resources, Congress, Democrats, Economy, Energy, House, Jobs, John Boehner, News, Oil drilling/resources, Senate

Trackback URL:

Gov. Half-Term Sorta Backs Gingrich In South Carolina

Obviously, you can tell I’m not a big Sarah Palin fan anymore, but, putting that aside, I’m not so sure this sorta endorsement will help Gingrich. It may be the equivalent of John McCain endorsing Mitt Romney to Conservatives

(CBS News) It wasn’t an endorsement, but Sarah Palin gave Newt Gingrich the next best thing on Tuesday, saying she would vote for the former speaker — if she lived in South Carolina.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox News, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee declared Gingrich the winner of Monday night’s Republican debate, comparing his performance to boxing legend Joe Frazier.

“He came out there swingin’, talking about work,” Palin said. “Talkin’ about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that’s what a lot of voters have been craving to hear.”

I’m not a big Newt fan, mostly due to his support of anthropogenic global warming legislation and regulations, but, I could vote for him, unlike Ron Paul. That said, he did have a fantastic debate, and gave the best answers.

Asked if she was any closer to giving an endorsement, Palin told the Fox News host that she could only tell him what she’d do if she were a South Carolinian. “If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt, and I would want this to continue.” Such a position indicated her desire for the political vetting to keep unfolding.

So, kind of a back-handed endorsement. We’ll see if this helps or hurts Gingrich in the upcoming Primary. In reality, though, the next few debates will probably make the most difference. Palin lost quite a bit of support after she finally decided (late) to not run for president after all that time hemming and hawing.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Email This

Posted by William Teach at 7:50 am | Comments Off | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Debate, Elections, Fox News, GOP, News, Newt Gingrich, Primary, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Trackback URL:

January 17, 2012

How to register and vote absentee

I found this website made things very easy. You can register, verify your registration, and request absentee ballots here. Pretty simple and self explanatory when you get there. If you are military or overseas go here.

Email This

Posted by Jay at 7:25 pm | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0)

» Filed Under Elections

Trackback URL:

Climate Change Hoax Has Apparently Become Part Of The Culture War

So says the Washington Posts Michael Gerson, who starts out calling Katharine Hayhoe, who had written the chapter in Newt Gingrich’s forthcoming book that ended up being whacked, a “moderate voice.” She’s anything but.

A theory about the role of carbon dioxide in climate patterns has joined abortion and gay marriage as a culture war controversy. Climate scientists are attacked as greenshirts and watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside). Skeptics are derided as flat-earthers. Reputations are assaulted and the e-mails of scientists hacked.

What explains the recent, bench-clearing climate brawl? A scientific debate has been sucked into a broader national argument about the role of government. Many political liberals have seized on climate disruption as an excuse for policies they supported long before climate science became compelling — greater federal regulation and mandated lifestyle changes. Conservatives have also tended to equate climate science with liberal policies and therefore reject both.

And, Boom! Gerson hits on the true support by liberals of anthropogenic global warming: power, higher taxes, and increased Central Government. Funny how liberals never consider what their support for these ideals would mean for their own lives, but, then, they always think that the “solutions” will always affect Someone Else.

No cause has been more effectively sabotaged by its political advocates. Climate scientists, in my experience, are generally careful, well-intentioned and confused to be at the center of a global controversy. Investigations of hacked e-mails have revealed evidence of frustration — and perhaps of fudging but not of fraud. It is their political defenders who often discredit their work through hyperbole and arrogance. As environmental writer Michael Shellenberger points out, “The rise in the number of Americans telling pollsters that news of global warming was being exaggerated began virtually concurrently with the release of Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’”

Yes, the emails do show frustration on the part of the “climate scientists”: frustration that they are continually being asked to show their work in the public domain, how they got to their answers, and what the raw data shows. They do not like that, so the emails also show arrogance, attempts to circumvent freedom of information requests, attempts to block papers that do not agree with their views, and that the science was politicized and manufactured, among others. Not fudging, but fraud.

Gerson keeps going for a bit about the sociology of the issue, before moving on to

But however interesting this sociology may be, it has nothing to do with the science at issue. Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.

Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans.

Except, the BEST data also showed that 1/3 of the stations reported cooling. And, despite increases in atmospheric CO2, the last 15 years have been stagnant or cooling. But, we see the Warmist “scientific” Underwear Gnome style belief: temps went up, CO2 went up, Man releases CO2, therefore, it is all Mankind’s fault. Who cares if the oceans put out 16 times the amount of CO2 that Mankind does. It’s all mankind’s fault. So, YOU have to pay for this by driving unsafe motor vehicles while Liberal Elites take limos and private jets to exotic vacation spots for climate conferences.

But any rational approach requires some distance between science and ideology. The extraction and burning of dead plant matter is not a moral good — or the proper cause for a culture war.

But, the theory of anthropogenic global warming, er, climate change, um, climate extremes, climate weirding, extreme weather, whatever they’re calling it now, hasn’t been about science since Keeling did an investigation into CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa volcano observatory in Hawaii in the 1950’s and immediately declared that it was all mankind’s fault. I’ve written it ad nauseum, but, if the Warmists really believe in their “science”, they’d change their own behavior to match their rhetoric. Yet, other than perhaps changing a lightbulb and turning a light off, they don’t.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.