Today was a milestone in history. The Democrats in Congress have made it very clear that when they take control of the White House, they will immediately surrender to the Islamic fanatics that are tearing Iraq apart. Of course, the results will be catastrophic in the long run, but nary a Democrat could care less.
The Roman Empire did not collapse because it lost a war. Its collapse started with the Roman Senate deciding to cut the pay of far away soldiers defending the frontiers. Within a few years, the Roman citizens who were serving in the army departed the service, leaving only mercenaries. Sometime after that, several of the generals, who themselves were mostly from the hinterlands, began to leave as well, forming roving bands that extracted ransoms from various towns and villages to pay their way. By 400 A.D., one of these bands was so successful that it began to move toward Rome. In 410, its leader, Alaric, laid seige and demanded tribute from the city of Rome itself. As you may know, Rome was no longer the capitol of the Empire, it having been moved to Constaninople. But when the citizens were unable to continue monthly payments, Alaric cut off the water supply. Within two months, the city's population had declined by half, and the remainder threw open the gates. The barbarians raided Rome for two weeks, taking everything they had a desire for. Then they left. Roman citizens were shattered by this defeat, and never stood off against an armed force again, even in World War II.
A few weeks ago, I encouraged the election of a Democrat for President in the hopes that the responsibilities of office would correct their obvious blindness. It is probably too late for that.
Within 15 years, we will be engaged in armed conflict against Islamic extremists here in North America, and we will continue to lose. A nation without a spine is no match for a determined enemy that wishes to impose their will on its captives, or kill them.
Victor Davis Hanson provides a more optimistic view in this article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/is_the_war_on_terror_over.html
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Global Warming Baloney II
From the New York Post:
AL'S WARMING LIES
By IAIN MURRAY
March 22, 2007 -- AL Gore was born and spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. Yesterday, he returned to the fever swamp to show he's forgotten none of his old political tricks. Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.
Gore's biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."
This is meaningless. The Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than today. No giant space nanny fed it medicine.
Moreover, a healthy baby has a constant temperature - that's why a fever is bad. The Earth does not have a constant temperature. It has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, but that has not been uniform. It's had warming phases (the 1920s and 1930) and cooling phases (the 1940s to 1970s).
It's also had periods like today, when temperatures are flat - there hasn't been much warming since 1998. Yes, it's warmer today than it was a hundred years ago, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Talking about fevers is misleading, but it's a great rhetorical trick.
And when it comes to the economics of the issue, Gore is way outside the mainstream.
Appearing before a House committee, he said that changing the American economy in the way he proposes - a plan of freezes, taxes, market controls and regulations that would represent a massive expansion of government control over the economy - would not be costly.
Yet he also endorsed the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol (which he helped negotiate). The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that Kyoto would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $100 billion to $400 billion a year.
Gore is a very wealthy man, but it's hard to see why he can't recognize that this is a lot of money lost - and a lot of jobs lost and a lot of families going cold and hungry.
How does Gore address this point? He doesn't; he simply avoids it, with highfalutin rhetoric. It's not just the Earth's "fever" and our supposed moral duty to cure it; he says our descendants will either condemn us as blind or praise us for our moral courage. He also makes veiled references to himself as Churchill, while all around him others appease fascism.
It's not subtle stuff - nor accurate.
If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming - reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies' economic costs.
Al Gore doesn't want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect. Kyoto, fully enacted by all its parties, would for all its cost reduce global warming by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 - a barely detectable amount.
Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon.
If we have a moral duty, it's to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That's the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.
Iain Murray is senior fellow in Energy, Science and Technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
AL'S WARMING LIES
By IAIN MURRAY
March 22, 2007 -- AL Gore was born and spent most of his life in Washington, D.C. Yesterday, he returned to the fever swamp to show he's forgotten none of his old political tricks. Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.
Gore's biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor."
This is meaningless. The Earth has been much, much hotter in the past than today. No giant space nanny fed it medicine.
Moreover, a healthy baby has a constant temperature - that's why a fever is bad. The Earth does not have a constant temperature. It has been generally warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, but that has not been uniform. It's had warming phases (the 1920s and 1930) and cooling phases (the 1940s to 1970s).
It's also had periods like today, when temperatures are flat - there hasn't been much warming since 1998. Yes, it's warmer today than it was a hundred years ago, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Talking about fevers is misleading, but it's a great rhetorical trick.
And when it comes to the economics of the issue, Gore is way outside the mainstream.
Appearing before a House committee, he said that changing the American economy in the way he proposes - a plan of freezes, taxes, market controls and regulations that would represent a massive expansion of government control over the economy - would not be costly.
Yet he also endorsed the ill-fated Kyoto Protocol (which he helped negotiate). The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that Kyoto would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $100 billion to $400 billion a year.
Gore is a very wealthy man, but it's hard to see why he can't recognize that this is a lot of money lost - and a lot of jobs lost and a lot of families going cold and hungry.
How does Gore address this point? He doesn't; he simply avoids it, with highfalutin rhetoric. It's not just the Earth's "fever" and our supposed moral duty to cure it; he says our descendants will either condemn us as blind or praise us for our moral courage. He also makes veiled references to himself as Churchill, while all around him others appease fascism.
It's not subtle stuff - nor accurate.
If you establish that the Earth is warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have a moral duty to reduce emissions. What should follow is an informed debate about the costs and benefits of various policies to address that warming - reducing emissions is just one possible answer. Another debate should focus on those policies' economic costs.
Al Gore doesn't want to have those debates, because the majority of evidence suggests that emissions reduction will be very costly and will have little effect. Kyoto, fully enacted by all its parties, would for all its cost reduce global warming by a mere 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050 - a barely detectable amount.
Meanwhile, 2 billion people around the world go without electricity. About 3 million die each year because of fumes given off by primitive stoves. The U.S. economy sneezes when gasoline hits $3 a gallon.
If we have a moral duty, it's to keep energy affordable here and to expand access to it overseas. That's the real moral truth, however inconvenient for Al Gore.
Iain Murray is senior fellow in Energy, Science and Technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Ralph Peters has it right!
The roots of today's wars
by Ralph Peters
President Bush’s refrain about Iraq is that we’re engaged in a ‘war of ideas.’ Not true. Our enemies are waging wars of religion and ethnicity, whether we like it or not. Critics have made the case that insurgencies can’t be defeated. Wrong again.
I cringe each time President Bush repeats his claim that we're engaged in "a battle of ideas." We're not. Our enemies aren't fighting about ideas, but over fundamental issues of identity: faith and ethnicity. Their motivations make them far more implacable, and even crueler, than yesteryear's ideological opponents.
In Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike are lost in history, clinging to an outmoded, if comfortable, view of the world as we wish it to be, rather than as it is. But we face a radically changed global environment that makes nonsense of the last century's theories of international relations and the ability to regulate warfare. An epoch has ended, and a new historical period — with terrifying new rules — has begun.
From 1789 and the French Revolution until the Soviet Union's disintegration in 1991, humankind took a bizarre historical detour through the Age of Ideology, when hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people accepted the notion that intellectuals and other charlatans could design better systems of social and political organization than had arisen naturally.
The arrogance of men such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong in believing that they could compress human complexity into their scribbled utopian visions may have been stunning, but the willingness of the masses to put their faith in such systems was a form of collective madness.
Inevitably, human beings disappointed the demagogues who tried to perfect humanity. Leaders responded by forcing men and women to fit the "ideal" pattern and the quest for utopia led inexorably to the gulag and Auschwitz, to Mao's Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia or, at best, the poverty of today's Havana.
The Cold War was a battle of ideas. Iraq isn't.
Back to the mainstream:
The Age of Ideology still echoes in Latin America, but the great "isms" of the 19th and 20th centuries are essentially dead, unlikely to rise from the grave. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean we've entered a new era of peace: We've simply returned to the mainstream of history, to conflicts over religion and ethnicity.
As globalization paradoxically revived old identities of faith and tribe in traditional societies, such default allegiances became worth fighting for again. Men are once more killing to please an angry god or to avenge (real or imagined) ethnic wrongs.
The turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and that which we are bound to face elsewhere tomorrow, is asymmetrical not only in military terms, but in the motivations that stoke the violence. We have ideas, ranging from the universal validity of individual freedom and the power of democracy, to equal rights for women. Our enemies have passions — the ecstatic intoxication of faith and the Darwinian bitterness of the tribe — that give them a ferocious strength of will.
Iraq has been a terrible disappointment to many who believed in the galvanizing power of our ideas. Instead, we unleashed the killing power of faiths struggling for supremacy and the savagery of ethnic strife. This is the warfare of the Old Testament, of the book of Joshua, an ineradicable pattern of human behavior. For our part, we try to fight with lawyers at our elbows.
Our two major political parties may have different views on Iraq, but what's deeply worrisome is their shared view of the world as amenable to the last century's solutions: Negotiations first and foremost, with limited war when negotiations fail. But our enemies are only interested in negotiations when they need to buy time, while our limited approach to warfare only limits our chance of success.
Washington's unwillingness to face the new global reality is compounded by our ignorance of history — which lets spurious claims pass as facts. For example, talking heads somberly assure us (vis-à-vis Iraq) that insurgencies are virtually impossible to defeat. That's false. Over the past 3,000 years, insurgencies and revolts have failed overwhelmingly. It was only during the brief and now-defunct Age of Ideology that insurgents scored substantial victories — usually because imperial powers were already in retreat and anxious to leave the territory the insurgents contested.
The bad news here is that, while throughout history most insurgencies failed, they had to be put down with substantial bloodletting. Across three millennia, I can find no major religion-driven insurgency that was suppressed without significant slaughter.
Even the insurgencies of the Age of Ideology failed more often than not: French savagery won the Battle of Algiers, but the victory came too late because the French people had already given up on the struggle (a foretaste of Iraq?). The British destroyed the Mau Mau movement in Kenya with hanging courts, concentration camps and resolute military action — then left because they had no interest in remaining.
What has worked:
Historically, the common denominator of successful counterinsurgency operations is that only an uncompromising military approach works — not winning hearts and minds nor a negotiated compromise. This runs counter to our politically correct worldview, but the historical evidence is incontestable.
Simply because the truth is hateful to us doesn't mean that we can declare it false. We have entered a grim new age in which we must cope simultaneously with a return to old-fashioned wars of blood and belief, with the fatally flawed borders left behind by European imperialism, with the destabilizing effects of the information age on traditional societies, and with the explosion of our cherished myths about the pacific nature of humankind.
There were many things we failed to understand about Iraq, but our comprehensive mistake has been failing to understand our place in history.
Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author, most recently, of Never Quit the Fight.
by Ralph Peters
President Bush’s refrain about Iraq is that we’re engaged in a ‘war of ideas.’ Not true. Our enemies are waging wars of religion and ethnicity, whether we like it or not. Critics have made the case that insurgencies can’t be defeated. Wrong again.
I cringe each time President Bush repeats his claim that we're engaged in "a battle of ideas." We're not. Our enemies aren't fighting about ideas, but over fundamental issues of identity: faith and ethnicity. Their motivations make them far more implacable, and even crueler, than yesteryear's ideological opponents.
In Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike are lost in history, clinging to an outmoded, if comfortable, view of the world as we wish it to be, rather than as it is. But we face a radically changed global environment that makes nonsense of the last century's theories of international relations and the ability to regulate warfare. An epoch has ended, and a new historical period — with terrifying new rules — has begun.
From 1789 and the French Revolution until the Soviet Union's disintegration in 1991, humankind took a bizarre historical detour through the Age of Ideology, when hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people accepted the notion that intellectuals and other charlatans could design better systems of social and political organization than had arisen naturally.
The arrogance of men such as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong in believing that they could compress human complexity into their scribbled utopian visions may have been stunning, but the willingness of the masses to put their faith in such systems was a form of collective madness.
Inevitably, human beings disappointed the demagogues who tried to perfect humanity. Leaders responded by forcing men and women to fit the "ideal" pattern and the quest for utopia led inexorably to the gulag and Auschwitz, to Mao's Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia or, at best, the poverty of today's Havana.
The Cold War was a battle of ideas. Iraq isn't.
Back to the mainstream:
The Age of Ideology still echoes in Latin America, but the great "isms" of the 19th and 20th centuries are essentially dead, unlikely to rise from the grave. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean we've entered a new era of peace: We've simply returned to the mainstream of history, to conflicts over religion and ethnicity.
As globalization paradoxically revived old identities of faith and tribe in traditional societies, such default allegiances became worth fighting for again. Men are once more killing to please an angry god or to avenge (real or imagined) ethnic wrongs.
The turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and that which we are bound to face elsewhere tomorrow, is asymmetrical not only in military terms, but in the motivations that stoke the violence. We have ideas, ranging from the universal validity of individual freedom and the power of democracy, to equal rights for women. Our enemies have passions — the ecstatic intoxication of faith and the Darwinian bitterness of the tribe — that give them a ferocious strength of will.
Iraq has been a terrible disappointment to many who believed in the galvanizing power of our ideas. Instead, we unleashed the killing power of faiths struggling for supremacy and the savagery of ethnic strife. This is the warfare of the Old Testament, of the book of Joshua, an ineradicable pattern of human behavior. For our part, we try to fight with lawyers at our elbows.
Our two major political parties may have different views on Iraq, but what's deeply worrisome is their shared view of the world as amenable to the last century's solutions: Negotiations first and foremost, with limited war when negotiations fail. But our enemies are only interested in negotiations when they need to buy time, while our limited approach to warfare only limits our chance of success.
Washington's unwillingness to face the new global reality is compounded by our ignorance of history — which lets spurious claims pass as facts. For example, talking heads somberly assure us (vis-à-vis Iraq) that insurgencies are virtually impossible to defeat. That's false. Over the past 3,000 years, insurgencies and revolts have failed overwhelmingly. It was only during the brief and now-defunct Age of Ideology that insurgents scored substantial victories — usually because imperial powers were already in retreat and anxious to leave the territory the insurgents contested.
The bad news here is that, while throughout history most insurgencies failed, they had to be put down with substantial bloodletting. Across three millennia, I can find no major religion-driven insurgency that was suppressed without significant slaughter.
Even the insurgencies of the Age of Ideology failed more often than not: French savagery won the Battle of Algiers, but the victory came too late because the French people had already given up on the struggle (a foretaste of Iraq?). The British destroyed the Mau Mau movement in Kenya with hanging courts, concentration camps and resolute military action — then left because they had no interest in remaining.
What has worked:
Historically, the common denominator of successful counterinsurgency operations is that only an uncompromising military approach works — not winning hearts and minds nor a negotiated compromise. This runs counter to our politically correct worldview, but the historical evidence is incontestable.
Simply because the truth is hateful to us doesn't mean that we can declare it false. We have entered a grim new age in which we must cope simultaneously with a return to old-fashioned wars of blood and belief, with the fatally flawed borders left behind by European imperialism, with the destabilizing effects of the information age on traditional societies, and with the explosion of our cherished myths about the pacific nature of humankind.
There were many things we failed to understand about Iraq, but our comprehensive mistake has been failing to understand our place in history.
Ralph Peters is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors and the author, most recently, of Never Quit the Fight.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Global Warming Baloney!
One of the hot topics of our time is the talk of human-caused Global Warming. We should not be surprised that so much attention is devoted to this nonsense issue. First, it postulates a great global catastrophe, which all media loves. Second, the nature of the looming disaster REQUIRES massive central governmental action and control, which socialists and communists of all stripes love. Third, the entire argument is cloaked in scientific mumbo-jumbo, which sidesteps the need for discussion and debate, which psuedo-intellectuals and academics love. Finally, the issue is being publicized through a spokesman, Al Gore, that the Left views as a symbol of What's Wrong With America, namely the Stolen Florida Election, which cast the United States back into a dark age of Republican rule.
I only ask that we step back a bit and assess the claims of the Global Warming enthusiasts. The key to their entire argument is that rising Global Warming Gases (GWG) are the direct result of increasing human activity. If that argument doesn't fly, then the rest of their case falls apart. With that in mind, consider the following from Pete duPont:
Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.
Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.
The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.
The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.
Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.
As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears in the Wall Street Journal once a month.
I only ask that we step back a bit and assess the claims of the Global Warming enthusiasts. The key to their entire argument is that rising Global Warming Gases (GWG) are the direct result of increasing human activity. If that argument doesn't fly, then the rest of their case falls apart. With that in mind, consider the following from Pete duPont:
Plus Ça (Climate) Change
The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.
BY PETE DU PONT
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."
Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the National Center for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.
Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.
While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.
The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.
The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.
Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.
Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.
As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears in the Wall Street Journal once a month.
Monday, February 19, 2007
It's Time for the Democrats to Take Over!
It's been more than three months since I last posted. And it has been a difficult ninety days. Our country is struggling in a dangerous world. President Bush and the GOP are facing all-time low levels of public support. Yet we have the best economic conditions in twenty years. So, we are fat and happy. Most of us could care less what happens in Iraq or North Korea, or anywhere else, for that matter. What's important is what's happening to our favorite celebrities (wasn't the premature death of Anna Nicole Smith a tragedy?).
We are ready, as a nation, for an extended period of isolationism, and we have just the people to lead us into that new era of head-in-the-sand stupidity: the Democrats. Today, I am declaring myself in favor of a Democratic presidency, beginning in 2008!
Now some of you may think that such a turn of events will cause great harm to our Republic. Of course, you are correct. But we can afford a few years of socialism, utter stupidity, and other associated silliness (we survived eight years of Clinton, didn't we?). What we cannot afford for a generation is the spectre of nearly half our people behaving so irresponsibly as to create a danger for all of us. Today, in the Senate and the House, we have our highest-paid public servants acting like complete jackasses. There is a reason for this behavior: Democrats do not take the threat of Islamo-fascism seriously. Almost all of them believe that a Republican in the White House is more dangerous than a group of Muslim fanatics on an airplane.
The only way to cure them of that blindness is to put them in charge, which is what my friend Jonah Goldberg advocates in his most recent column in National Review:
Jonah Goldberg's column
Some long-term damage will result, whether it's Hillary, B.O., or any of the other wannabes (please, Dear God, don't let it be Joe "Blowhard" Biden). But whoever it is will have to face reality within days or, at the most, weeks of the 2009 inauguration. Shortly thereafter they will call meetings with key Capitol Hill Democrats and explain the Truth to them. The result will be a return to a realistic, bi-partisan foreign policy during a time of war. The last time such a thing occurred was more than forty years ago, in 1966, when Lyndon Johnson was President. Before that it was 1948 when Harry Truman was President. And before that it was 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt was in office.
Eventually, the Democrats will screw it up so badly that Republicans will be returned to office, probably in 2012. We were able to stomach Jimmy Carter for only four years, remember. But in the meantime, for the sake of the country, we need a Democrat in the White House.
We are ready, as a nation, for an extended period of isolationism, and we have just the people to lead us into that new era of head-in-the-sand stupidity: the Democrats. Today, I am declaring myself in favor of a Democratic presidency, beginning in 2008!
Now some of you may think that such a turn of events will cause great harm to our Republic. Of course, you are correct. But we can afford a few years of socialism, utter stupidity, and other associated silliness (we survived eight years of Clinton, didn't we?). What we cannot afford for a generation is the spectre of nearly half our people behaving so irresponsibly as to create a danger for all of us. Today, in the Senate and the House, we have our highest-paid public servants acting like complete jackasses. There is a reason for this behavior: Democrats do not take the threat of Islamo-fascism seriously. Almost all of them believe that a Republican in the White House is more dangerous than a group of Muslim fanatics on an airplane.
The only way to cure them of that blindness is to put them in charge, which is what my friend Jonah Goldberg advocates in his most recent column in National Review:
Jonah Goldberg's column
Some long-term damage will result, whether it's Hillary, B.O., or any of the other wannabes (please, Dear God, don't let it be Joe "Blowhard" Biden). But whoever it is will have to face reality within days or, at the most, weeks of the 2009 inauguration. Shortly thereafter they will call meetings with key Capitol Hill Democrats and explain the Truth to them. The result will be a return to a realistic, bi-partisan foreign policy during a time of war. The last time such a thing occurred was more than forty years ago, in 1966, when Lyndon Johnson was President. Before that it was 1948 when Harry Truman was President. And before that it was 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt was in office.
Eventually, the Democrats will screw it up so badly that Republicans will be returned to office, probably in 2012. We were able to stomach Jimmy Carter for only four years, remember. But in the meantime, for the sake of the country, we need a Democrat in the White House.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
What we now can expect from the Jihaddis
Too many people think that the threat from Islamic fundamentalism is suicide planes. That is a mistake. It is highly doubtful that the Jihaddis have in mind to defeat the West through a series of terror attacks; their goals are much more ambitious. They seek to place the whole world under Sharia law, i.e., make illegal any act that does not conform to their interpretation of the Koran. To accomplish this, they must first reduce the governments of the West, including the United States, to a position of immobility and irrelevance in foreign affairs. The War in Iraq has provided them with a starting point, and our democratic system of government has provided the means by which they can accomplish this goal. Last week's election results have de-fanged the American government. Bush and his successors will be unable to conduct even a defensive military operation until it threatens U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Even a response to attacks here will be severely muted as we attempt to return to the time when terrorism was treated as a strictly criminal matter. This gives our enemies ample time to begin step-by-step takeovers of smaller, then larger communities, first in Europe, then in the U.S., through "democratic" action.
This forecast should not be taken lightly. With our government paralyzed around the world, the Jihaddis have an open pathway --if they are patient-- to accomplishing all their aims. Mark Steyn says it well in his most recent column:
"What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation.
"As it is, we're in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can't muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.
"It doesn't work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That's how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. "These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover."
-- Mark Steyn, November 12, 2006
This forecast should not be taken lightly. With our government paralyzed around the world, the Jihaddis have an open pathway --if they are patient-- to accomplishing all their aims. Mark Steyn says it well in his most recent column:
"What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation.
"As it is, we're in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can't muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.
"It doesn't work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That's how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. "These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover."
-- Mark Steyn, November 12, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
NFL Sunday Picks for November 12
Final results below in color. My picks were so-so; four for eight. My year-to-date average drops a few more points to 61% (41-26).
After last week, when I dropped from 71% overall to 65% overall in my picks so far this season, I've decided to go a little more conservative:
Ravens 24, Titans 6
Ravens 27, Titans 26
Patriots 28, Jets 23
Patriots 14, Jets 17
Eagles 19, Redskins 17
Eagles 27, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Texans 10
Jaguars 10, Texans 13
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 14
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 10
Bengals 18, Chargers 17
Bengals 41, Chargers 49
Giants 25, Bears 20
Giants 20, Bears 38
Panthers 21, Buccaneers 17
Panthers 24, Buccaneers 10
After last week, when I dropped from 71% overall to 65% overall in my picks so far this season, I've decided to go a little more conservative:
Ravens 24, Titans 6
Ravens 27, Titans 26
Patriots 28, Jets 23
Patriots 14, Jets 17
Eagles 19, Redskins 17
Eagles 27, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Texans 10
Jaguars 10, Texans 13
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 14
Cowboys 27, Cardinals 10
Bengals 18, Chargers 17
Bengals 41, Chargers 49
Giants 25, Bears 20
Giants 20, Bears 38
Panthers 21, Buccaneers 17
Panthers 24, Buccaneers 10
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What This All Means
As I sit here, in gloomy contemplation of the Democrats' overwhelming victories coast to coast, I have to remember the sage advice of the wise old man to the young king, "No matter how good or bad this is, my son, it too shall pass."
After some reflection, however, I have come to see this election as much more important than I previously had thought. Now that the returns are in, no one can deny that the War in Iraq was the over-riding issue. What that means is pretty significant. Because what that means is that the United States will not be able to use military force outside of its own territory for at least 40 years; i.e., until long after I am gone.
Why do I say this? Well, two reasons. First, the history of America is fundamentally isolationist. We rarely engaged in wars overseas (notwithstanding a number of minor military "police" actions), and each one was very unpopular at home. All except World War II, and I think that one was only different because our alliance with Joe Stalin kept all the left-wing kooks and communists quiet. Our preference is that we stay home and let what the worst among us called the "nips" or the "krauts" or the "frogs" or the "gooks" or the "towel-heads" kill each other off. What yesterday's election confirmed for me was that the War in Iraq has lost almost all of its support simply because we can't see any reason for interfering in another crappy war between stupid, uncivilized tribes in a part of the world we don't even want to visit, let alone save.
The second reason is even more significant. In the past three years the Democrats have taught a lesson on how you can take a messy military situation and turn it to political advantage with the cooperation of a compliant, left-leaning media. Trust me, the Republicans have learned the lesson. What this means is that whatever military action is proposed by a future democrat leader (President Pelosi, anyone?) will be used just as ruthlessly against the Democrats as the War in Iraq was used against the Republicans. You see, "permission has been granted" by the behavior of the Democrats. And they know it. Democrats will be, if you can pardon the expression, "gun-shy" for at least a generation.
Now for the long-term result. From now on our foreign policy will be strictly "cash and carry". Since we can no longer back up our diplomacy with military action, our only option will be bribery. It won't take long for various adversaries to figure this out. Even before the end of the Bush presidency, you will hear talk about gigantic financial aid programs and bail-outs (so-called third world "debt relief"). If we don't come across, our citizens and others will pay with their lives, as it becomes open season on American tourists. Look for this to spread widely over the next 10-15 years. There was a time when we would threaten action against a government that permitted such misbehavior, but the Speak Softly approach to diplomacy only works if you are willing to use a Big Stick. Yesterday, American voters said to their political class, "don't use a Big Stick if it costs a lot of money and the lives of a lot of soldiers". That is how the rest of the world will read it.
Congress will not be able to force the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the handwriting is on the wall. No intelligent Iraqi is going to hang around until 2008 to see if Bush can pull off a miracle against the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-war crowd. Without these key people, no Iraqi government can succeed. Chaos will result within months, and the U.S. will have no choice but to force some sort of partitioning, keeping the vicious Sunni Triangle and Bagdad separate. Once the Iranian-backed thugs move in, it'll just be a matter of time before this terrorist enclave begins blackmailing its neighbors. We will be powerless to help. The next president will order the evacuation of the last troops before the summer of 2009.
But Americans will be happy. The war will be over, social spending will rise as tax dollars stop flowing to the military (look for a hell of a fight in 2007 on the DOD budget), and very few of our citizens will be threatened in this country. Of course, we will watch with interest as the Islamization of Europe begins to accelerate. But, so what? The what the English called the "wogs", the "wops" and the "spics" should look after themselves anyway. Who are we? Our brothers' keeper?
Incidentally, one other event will occur before the end of the next administration: the elimination of Israel. Without U.S. military capabilities behind them, the Israeli military doesn't stand a chance against the newer, more virulent forms of guerrilla warfare that Iran is designing. I project the last jew will be out of the Middle East by 2015.
But Americans will be happy. Who wants to worry about the Middle East and all their problems, anyway. OPEC will continue to sell us as much oil as we want, at somewhat higher prices than we now enjoy perhaps. But $100 a barrel won't present much of a problem, will it? We've already tested $78. This'll just give our beaurocrats in Washington more reason to impose mandatory gas rationing, ethanol subsidies, and alternative energy programs on every one of us. For our own good, of course.
So it's not a pretty picture, is it? But as a people we have always favored delaying any action to deal with long-term problems. When our Constitutional Convention punted on the question of slavery in 1789, it just kicked the issue down the calendar about seventy years. The result was the bloodiest war in fifteen centuries. But up to then, everyone was happy until Lincoln came along. Oh, by the way, they called it "Mr. Lincoln's War" in the north, and the Democrat that almost beat him in 1864 was a former Union general that some thought was a war hero.
Islamic fundamentalism is the number one long-term problem in the world today. More important than "global warming" (which is a hoax on the order of medieval alchemy), AIDS, or breast cancer. But who wants to wear a black ribbon in recognition of all the people who have had their heads cut off, or who have been blown up by IEDs? For that matter, who even cares about what happened on September 11, 2001? The passage of time has dimmed our memories, and the passage of more time will ensure that when Islamic Sharia law is granted to the citizens of Ontario, Canada, or Deaborn, Michigan, there will be members of the Democratic party to claim that it is just another way of supporting family values.
This is all going to happen, my friends, because yesterday the United States foreign policy was castrated by the election of 2006. Mark the date.
At some point in the future, I will post a discourse on what effect this will have on China, the only other major power left in the world. All I can say at this point is, get your kids into Chinese language lessons soon.
After some reflection, however, I have come to see this election as much more important than I previously had thought. Now that the returns are in, no one can deny that the War in Iraq was the over-riding issue. What that means is pretty significant. Because what that means is that the United States will not be able to use military force outside of its own territory for at least 40 years; i.e., until long after I am gone.
Why do I say this? Well, two reasons. First, the history of America is fundamentally isolationist. We rarely engaged in wars overseas (notwithstanding a number of minor military "police" actions), and each one was very unpopular at home. All except World War II, and I think that one was only different because our alliance with Joe Stalin kept all the left-wing kooks and communists quiet. Our preference is that we stay home and let what the worst among us called the "nips" or the "krauts" or the "frogs" or the "gooks" or the "towel-heads" kill each other off. What yesterday's election confirmed for me was that the War in Iraq has lost almost all of its support simply because we can't see any reason for interfering in another crappy war between stupid, uncivilized tribes in a part of the world we don't even want to visit, let alone save.
The second reason is even more significant. In the past three years the Democrats have taught a lesson on how you can take a messy military situation and turn it to political advantage with the cooperation of a compliant, left-leaning media. Trust me, the Republicans have learned the lesson. What this means is that whatever military action is proposed by a future democrat leader (President Pelosi, anyone?) will be used just as ruthlessly against the Democrats as the War in Iraq was used against the Republicans. You see, "permission has been granted" by the behavior of the Democrats. And they know it. Democrats will be, if you can pardon the expression, "gun-shy" for at least a generation.
Now for the long-term result. From now on our foreign policy will be strictly "cash and carry". Since we can no longer back up our diplomacy with military action, our only option will be bribery. It won't take long for various adversaries to figure this out. Even before the end of the Bush presidency, you will hear talk about gigantic financial aid programs and bail-outs (so-called third world "debt relief"). If we don't come across, our citizens and others will pay with their lives, as it becomes open season on American tourists. Look for this to spread widely over the next 10-15 years. There was a time when we would threaten action against a government that permitted such misbehavior, but the Speak Softly approach to diplomacy only works if you are willing to use a Big Stick. Yesterday, American voters said to their political class, "don't use a Big Stick if it costs a lot of money and the lives of a lot of soldiers". That is how the rest of the world will read it.
Congress will not be able to force the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the handwriting is on the wall. No intelligent Iraqi is going to hang around until 2008 to see if Bush can pull off a miracle against the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-war crowd. Without these key people, no Iraqi government can succeed. Chaos will result within months, and the U.S. will have no choice but to force some sort of partitioning, keeping the vicious Sunni Triangle and Bagdad separate. Once the Iranian-backed thugs move in, it'll just be a matter of time before this terrorist enclave begins blackmailing its neighbors. We will be powerless to help. The next president will order the evacuation of the last troops before the summer of 2009.
But Americans will be happy. The war will be over, social spending will rise as tax dollars stop flowing to the military (look for a hell of a fight in 2007 on the DOD budget), and very few of our citizens will be threatened in this country. Of course, we will watch with interest as the Islamization of Europe begins to accelerate. But, so what? The what the English called the "wogs", the "wops" and the "spics" should look after themselves anyway. Who are we? Our brothers' keeper?
Incidentally, one other event will occur before the end of the next administration: the elimination of Israel. Without U.S. military capabilities behind them, the Israeli military doesn't stand a chance against the newer, more virulent forms of guerrilla warfare that Iran is designing. I project the last jew will be out of the Middle East by 2015.
But Americans will be happy. Who wants to worry about the Middle East and all their problems, anyway. OPEC will continue to sell us as much oil as we want, at somewhat higher prices than we now enjoy perhaps. But $100 a barrel won't present much of a problem, will it? We've already tested $78. This'll just give our beaurocrats in Washington more reason to impose mandatory gas rationing, ethanol subsidies, and alternative energy programs on every one of us. For our own good, of course.
So it's not a pretty picture, is it? But as a people we have always favored delaying any action to deal with long-term problems. When our Constitutional Convention punted on the question of slavery in 1789, it just kicked the issue down the calendar about seventy years. The result was the bloodiest war in fifteen centuries. But up to then, everyone was happy until Lincoln came along. Oh, by the way, they called it "Mr. Lincoln's War" in the north, and the Democrat that almost beat him in 1864 was a former Union general that some thought was a war hero.
Islamic fundamentalism is the number one long-term problem in the world today. More important than "global warming" (which is a hoax on the order of medieval alchemy), AIDS, or breast cancer. But who wants to wear a black ribbon in recognition of all the people who have had their heads cut off, or who have been blown up by IEDs? For that matter, who even cares about what happened on September 11, 2001? The passage of time has dimmed our memories, and the passage of more time will ensure that when Islamic Sharia law is granted to the citizens of Ontario, Canada, or Deaborn, Michigan, there will be members of the Democratic party to claim that it is just another way of supporting family values.
This is all going to happen, my friends, because yesterday the United States foreign policy was castrated by the election of 2006. Mark the date.
At some point in the future, I will post a discourse on what effect this will have on China, the only other major power left in the world. All I can say at this point is, get your kids into Chinese language lessons soon.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Here's a Democrat that Agrees with me!
November 06, 2006
The Only Issue This Election Day by Orson Scott Card
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else. But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
To read the rest of what Orson Scott Card has to say, go here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
The Only Issue This Election Day by Orson Scott Card
There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else. But at least there will be a chance.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
To read the rest of what Orson Scott Card has to say, go here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
Saturday, November 04, 2006
This Election is All About the War on Terror
As much as most democrats want the election tomorrow to be about their hated enemy, George Bush, our votes are really about the future of Western culture. Today, a heroic handful of our fellow citizens are fighting like hell in Iraq to pin down the most dangerous enemy we have faced sinced World War II. Of course, the party out of power wants to use our difficulties there to get back into power. But they have no idea what to if they are put back at the controls. I would no more want Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer in charge of our foreign policy than I would have them pilot the 737 I plan to board in two weeks for a flight to Chicago. Things can always go more smoothly in Iraq, I have no doubt. But for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone thinks the party that spawned John Kerry would be able to accomplish that.
Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Marsden says it better than I do, so check it out : http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2006/11/04/2231233-sun.html
Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Marsden says it better than I do, so check it out : http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Marsden_Rachel/2006/11/04/2231233-sun.html
NFL Sunday Picks for November 5
I got hammered! More wrong than right for the first time this season. I think next week I'll do a little sand-bagging.
It's very tempting to pick several "sure" things: Seahawks, Chargers, Vikings, Bears, Giants and Falcons. All should win without a sweat. But those games are not worthy of Captain Lucky Dog's attention. Let's look at the tough ones:
Ravens 24, Bengals 23
Ravens 26, Bengals 20
Bills 17, Packers 10
Bills 24, Packers 10
Cowboys 33, Redskins 27
Cowboys 19, Redskins 22
Rams 28, Chiefs 24
Rams 17, Chiefs 31
Steelers 17, Broncos 13
Steelers 20, Broncos 31
Patriots 20, Colts 17
Patriots 20, Colts 27
Jaguars 30, Titans 20
Jaguars 37, Titans 7
Bucaneers 27, Saints 21
Bucaneers 14, Saints 31
It's very tempting to pick several "sure" things: Seahawks, Chargers, Vikings, Bears, Giants and Falcons. All should win without a sweat. But those games are not worthy of Captain Lucky Dog's attention. Let's look at the tough ones:
Ravens 24, Bengals 23
Ravens 26, Bengals 20
Bills 17, Packers 10
Bills 24, Packers 10
Cowboys 33, Redskins 27
Cowboys 19, Redskins 22
Rams 28, Chiefs 24
Rams 17, Chiefs 31
Steelers 17, Broncos 13
Steelers 20, Broncos 31
Patriots 20, Colts 17
Patriots 20, Colts 27
Jaguars 30, Titans 20
Jaguars 37, Titans 7
Bucaneers 27, Saints 21
Bucaneers 14, Saints 31
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Who is John Kerry?
Nothing that the Republican Party could dream up at the last minute will be as successful as the incredible stupidity of John Kerry. Victor Davis Hanson says it best in his recent blog comment:
"How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman."
The entire blog from Hanson is well worth reading: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=
As I said yesterday, perhaps wishfully, I see this monumental gaffe from Senator Kerry revealing to the American people what fools the democrats are. This is the best way to suppress the democrat voter turnout; more than a few democrats will be ashamed to vote for these idiots even though they don't like Bush or his Republican colleagues.
"How could John Kerry, born into privilege, and then marrying and divorcing and marrying out of and back into greater inherited wealth, lecture anyone at a city college about the ingredients for success in America? If he were to give personal advice about making it, it would have to be to marry rich women. Nothing he has accomplished as a senator or candidate reveals either much natural intelligence or singular education. Today, Democrats must be wondering why they have embraced an overrated empty suit, and ostracized a real talent like Joe Lieberman."
The entire blog from Hanson is well worth reading: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmEzZGYwYzk0ZDE3YTM0NjY4MmY3Nzg3NDNjNzM5MjY=
As I said yesterday, perhaps wishfully, I see this monumental gaffe from Senator Kerry revealing to the American people what fools the democrats are. This is the best way to suppress the democrat voter turnout; more than a few democrats will be ashamed to vote for these idiots even though they don't like Bush or his Republican colleagues.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
How Quickly Things Can Change!
Twenty four hours ago, it seemed inevitable that Republicans would go down in defeat next Tuesday. But now, thanks to John Kerry, I suspect that the election outcome will be razor-thin nationally. More importantly, several key races will now tilt against the democrats.
The hopes of a democrat victory were based largely on their view that large numbers of voters were so incensed by Republican mis-steps that they would rise up and "throw the bums out". But the tables have been turned. My prediction is that the Get Out the Vote efforts of the Republicans will be wildly successful and swamp the Democrats in a number of key races.
It's true that 25-30% of the Democrats are frothing-at-the-mouth mad at Bush, and eager to take over Congress. Many of those very same folks are in the media, too. So the drumbeat in recent weeks, including a lot of dubious polls, have trumpeted a forthcoming Democrat victory. But Kerry's comments, combined with the efficient machinery that the GOP has in place to move their people to the polls, is going to make a decisive difference.
In an off-year election, almost 60% of the eligible voters won't even vote. Under these circumstances, an energized and angry conservative base can surprise in lots of places. I believe that the Republicans will hold both houses, and win both the governorship and the senate seat in Maryland! Boy, talk about going out on a limb!
The hopes of a democrat victory were based largely on their view that large numbers of voters were so incensed by Republican mis-steps that they would rise up and "throw the bums out". But the tables have been turned. My prediction is that the Get Out the Vote efforts of the Republicans will be wildly successful and swamp the Democrats in a number of key races.
It's true that 25-30% of the Democrats are frothing-at-the-mouth mad at Bush, and eager to take over Congress. Many of those very same folks are in the media, too. So the drumbeat in recent weeks, including a lot of dubious polls, have trumpeted a forthcoming Democrat victory. But Kerry's comments, combined with the efficient machinery that the GOP has in place to move their people to the polls, is going to make a decisive difference.
In an off-year election, almost 60% of the eligible voters won't even vote. Under these circumstances, an energized and angry conservative base can surprise in lots of places. I believe that the Republicans will hold both houses, and win both the governorship and the senate seat in Maryland! Boy, talk about going out on a limb!
Monday, October 30, 2006
Republicans first lost their way, now losing the election
It's apparent now that the democrats will gain a small majority in the House of Representatives. I doubt that they can capture enough seats in the Senate to assume control, so we are looking at a split government. It's going to be a rancorous two years until the next election; if you thought the anti-Bush crowd was shrill up until now, you haven't seen anything yet!
But why is this happening? Our economy is prosperous and our homeland has been kept secure, probably due to the war in Iraq. Well, Dick Armey, my former representative when I lived in Texas, has a pretty good understanding of where the republicans went off the rails. Read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701482.html
Read this article especially for a preview of the upcoming Pelosi reign.
But why is this happening? Our economy is prosperous and our homeland has been kept secure, probably due to the war in Iraq. Well, Dick Armey, my former representative when I lived in Texas, has a pretty good understanding of where the republicans went off the rails. Read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701482.html
Read this article especially for a preview of the upcoming Pelosi reign.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
NFL Sunday Picks for October 29
So much for home-field advantage: Seven won, five lost, including the Saints against my Ravens, which I had picked. But I also picked the Jets to beat the Browns at home and they lost, too. So, bottom-line, my season record has dropped to 32-13 (71%). I'm still picking the Vikings over the Patriots for MNF, I'm so stubborn.
Stubborn, all right. And wrong. Patriots blew the Vikings away; great defense!
After a week away (attending parents' weekend at Yale), I'm back with my most outrageous picks of the year:
This weekend the home teams will win every game with two exceptions. The Ravens will beat the Saints, and the Jets will beat the Browns (wrong!).
The other winners: Broncos (wrong!), Panthers (wrong!), Chiefs, Chargers, Bengals (wrong!) , Giants, Eagles (wrong!), Vikings (wrong!), Packers, Bears, Raiders, and Titans.
Stubborn, all right. And wrong. Patriots blew the Vikings away; great defense!
After a week away (attending parents' weekend at Yale), I'm back with my most outrageous picks of the year:
This weekend the home teams will win every game with two exceptions. The Ravens will beat the Saints, and the Jets will beat the Browns (wrong!).
The other winners: Broncos (wrong!), Panthers (wrong!), Chiefs, Chargers, Bengals (wrong!) , Giants, Eagles (wrong!), Vikings (wrong!), Packers, Bears, Raiders, and Titans.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
NFL Predictions for Sunday, October 15
It's a good thing I don't make my living picking NFL games! This weekend I was only 6-3, which brings my record to 25-8. Respectable, but not great. Philadelphia and Cincinnati really disappointed. The Ravens were a stretch anyway, but they're my team.
It's always challenging to keep up a great winning record, but this weekend should be an easy one. I've never seen so many obvious winners. The toughest appear to be Baltimore vs. Carolina and Philadelphia vs. New Orleans. The others look like "slam-dunks". Famous last words? We'll see; I'm going all out with nine picks:
Bengals 28, Bucaneers 10 ACTUAL: Tampa Bay 14, Cincinnati 13
Cowboys 31, Texans 7 ACTUAL: Dallas 34, Houston 6
Eagles 34, Saints 20 ACTUAL: New Orleans 27, Philadelphia 24
Steelers 26, Chiefs 14 ACTUAL: Pittsburgh 45, Kansas City 7
Jets 36, Dolphins 21 ACTUAL: New York 20, Miami 17
Chargers 33, 49ers 12 ACTUAL: San Diego 48, San Francisco 19
Broncos 24, Raiders 3 ACTUAL: Denver 13, Oakland 3
Bears 28, Cardinals 7 ACTUAL: Chicago 24, Arizona 23
Ravens 17, Panthers 15 ACTUAL: Carolina 23, Baltimore 21
It's always challenging to keep up a great winning record, but this weekend should be an easy one. I've never seen so many obvious winners. The toughest appear to be Baltimore vs. Carolina and Philadelphia vs. New Orleans. The others look like "slam-dunks". Famous last words? We'll see; I'm going all out with nine picks:
Bengals 28, Bucaneers 10 ACTUAL: Tampa Bay 14, Cincinnati 13
Cowboys 31, Texans 7 ACTUAL: Dallas 34, Houston 6
Eagles 34, Saints 20 ACTUAL: New Orleans 27, Philadelphia 24
Steelers 26, Chiefs 14 ACTUAL: Pittsburgh 45, Kansas City 7
Jets 36, Dolphins 21 ACTUAL: New York 20, Miami 17
Chargers 33, 49ers 12 ACTUAL: San Diego 48, San Francisco 19
Broncos 24, Raiders 3 ACTUAL: Denver 13, Oakland 3
Bears 28, Cardinals 7 ACTUAL: Chicago 24, Arizona 23
Ravens 17, Panthers 15 ACTUAL: Carolina 23, Baltimore 21
Sunday, October 08, 2006
NFL Predictions for Sunday, October 8
I was out of town until this morning. So these are hot off the press at 12:59 pm on Sunday!
Well, a nice set of predictions; six for six! Which makes me 19 and 5 YTD!
Giants 24, Redskins 14 ACTUAL: Giants 19, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Jets 27 ACTUAL: Jaguars 41, Jets 0
Saints 20, Bucaneers 12 ACTUAL: Saints 24, Bucaneers 21
Eagles 24, Cowboys 21 ACTUAL: Eagles 38, Cowboys 24
Chargers 21, Steelers 13 ACTUAL: Chargers 23, Steelers 13
Broncos 14, Ravens 10 ACTUAL: Broncos 13, Ravens 3
Yeah, I know I'm going against my Ravens. But they aren't going through the whole season without a loss, and Mile-High Stadium is too tough for the weak (still growing) Ravens offense.
Well, a nice set of predictions; six for six! Which makes me 19 and 5 YTD!
Giants 24, Redskins 14 ACTUAL: Giants 19, Redskins 3
Jaguars 33, Jets 27 ACTUAL: Jaguars 41, Jets 0
Saints 20, Bucaneers 12 ACTUAL: Saints 24, Bucaneers 21
Eagles 24, Cowboys 21 ACTUAL: Eagles 38, Cowboys 24
Chargers 21, Steelers 13 ACTUAL: Chargers 23, Steelers 13
Broncos 14, Ravens 10 ACTUAL: Broncos 13, Ravens 3
Yeah, I know I'm going against my Ravens. But they aren't going through the whole season without a loss, and Mile-High Stadium is too tough for the weak (still growing) Ravens offense.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Seasaw Battle Shaping Up in November
The upcoming election has been a hard one to judge, in particular because of a strong media bias against the incumbent Republican president. Just one month ago, bettors at Tradesports only gave Republicans a 38% chance of holding their House majority in the November election.
Then the Republicans went on a September tear. Just ten days ago, GOP chances had climbed to 58%. Why the turnaround? Pick your factors: falling gas prices; the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks; or maybe Hugo Chavez's rant at the United Nations.
How fast things change. Now, it's the Democrats' turn at a miracle comeback. Republican chances have slipped below 50% -- all the way to 46%. What explains the Republican collapse? The Mark Foley factor? Who knows.
Here's the good news: the most likely outcome is gridlock. When that happens, the markets historically have risen the following year by an average of 20%. In other words, if we can find a way to keep the government from doing anything, we are all better off!
Then the Republicans went on a September tear. Just ten days ago, GOP chances had climbed to 58%. Why the turnaround? Pick your factors: falling gas prices; the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks; or maybe Hugo Chavez's rant at the United Nations.
How fast things change. Now, it's the Democrats' turn at a miracle comeback. Republican chances have slipped below 50% -- all the way to 46%. What explains the Republican collapse? The Mark Foley factor? Who knows.
Here's the good news: the most likely outcome is gridlock. When that happens, the markets historically have risen the following year by an average of 20%. In other words, if we can find a way to keep the government from doing anything, we are all better off!
Friday, September 29, 2006
NFL Predictions for Sunday, October 1
Only picking five games this week. Looks like a lot of dog games otherwise.
Prediction Results: 3 wins, 2 losses (YTD 13-5)
Ravens 20, Chargers 10; Actual: Ravens 16, Chargers 13
Browns 21, Raiders 6; Actual: Browns 24, Raiders 21
Jaguars 27, Redskins 14; Actual: Redskins 36, Jaguars 30 (OT)
Bengals 34, Patriots 13; Actual: Patriots 38, Bengals 13
Bears 21, Seahawks 20; Actual: Chicago 37, Seattle 6
Prediction Results: 3 wins, 2 losses (YTD 13-5)
Ravens 20, Chargers 10; Actual: Ravens 16, Chargers 13
Browns 21, Raiders 6; Actual: Browns 24, Raiders 21
Jaguars 27, Redskins 14; Actual: Redskins 36, Jaguars 30 (OT)
Bengals 34, Patriots 13; Actual: Patriots 38, Bengals 13
Bears 21, Seahawks 20; Actual: Chicago 37, Seattle 6
Thursday, September 28, 2006
They Are Really Confused in Texas!
The good folks in Texas are really confused about abortion. Considering that the right to an abortion is the “law of the land”, and murder is against “the law of the land”, Fort Worth can't seem to make up its mind about which is actually the higher law!
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Police are searching for a 22-year-old Fort Worth man accused of causing the death of his unborn daughter last month by repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, who was five months pregnant, in the abdomen.
Homicide detectives obtained a capital murder warrant against Jason D. Nash this month after the Tarrant County medical examiner's office ruled the death of the fetus a homicide. . . .
"The next day police were notified that the unborn fetus had died," Sullivan said. . . .
Under Texas law, a person commits capital murder if they murder an individual under six years of age. An individual is defined as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every state of gestation from fertilization to birth.
Is the victim in this alleged crime an unborn daughter, a fetus, an unborn fetus, an individual, a human being or an unborn child? Don't ask us, baby!
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Police are searching for a 22-year-old Fort Worth man accused of causing the death of his unborn daughter last month by repeatedly kicking his girlfriend, who was five months pregnant, in the abdomen.
Homicide detectives obtained a capital murder warrant against Jason D. Nash this month after the Tarrant County medical examiner's office ruled the death of the fetus a homicide. . . .
"The next day police were notified that the unborn fetus had died," Sullivan said. . . .
Under Texas law, a person commits capital murder if they murder an individual under six years of age. An individual is defined as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every state of gestation from fertilization to birth.
Is the victim in this alleged crime an unborn daughter, a fetus, an unborn fetus, an individual, a human being or an unborn child? Don't ask us, baby!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)