Probably the most disconcerting (that is, "suspicious") thing about the conclusions of global warming researchers is that they are uniformly catastrophic. Apparently the global temperature around 1880 represented not only the best of all possible worlds, but a world so wonderful that increasing temperatures would make everything worse - it will rain more where we don't need it, and less where we do; pathogen carrying insects will expand their range, but insect eating species will die off, and people will never figure out that moving inland or northward gets them away from rising seas and excessive heat.
Today we hear that global warming destroyed $5 billion in crops between 1981 and 2002, which is a relative pittance at less than $250 million a year, but you can be sure things will get worse and worse until they justify Kyoto.
It's a shame that warming won't do a thing to prevent damage to citrus crops due to freezes, like the the $6.2 billion to Florida's citrus crop from 1983 to 1985 , or the $1.2 billion in California last month . But that's the way it goes. When you're living in utopia, things can only get worse.
Now, please, repeat after me:
Fish like it cold
Trees like it cold
Birds like it cold
Bees like it cold
You like it cold
He likes it cold
Snow loving ice loving
We like it cold
Even dogs like it cold!
That's why we're sold (that)
Gaia oh Gaia Oh!
She likes it cold!
Environuts, feel free to use that at your next drum circle.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Good news and bad news from JC
If you have not been reading Jules Crittenden's Good news and Bad news posts, you should be. Lots of interesting things in there.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Fire the whole damn bunch
I agree with Betsy on the whole non-scandal of the fired prosecutors.
I work in the private sector. My boss can fire me because she is having a bad day. She does not need anyone's permission. These people have failed to prosecute leak cases, they have not prosecuted cases concerning everything from illegal immigration to voter fraud. I say it is time some of them got fired, just to put the fear of God in the rest of them. And while I agree that there was some ineptitude in the handling of the situation it should be noted that is not exactly unusual in government. If that were reason for throwing people out of government the Democrats would lose their majority right now.
This scandalette has seemed like a tempest in a teapot. Yes, it was ineptly handled and the indication that Senator Pete Domenici was calling the prosecutors to find out the course of cases is distasteful, but these were Bush-appointed attorneys and he had every right to fire them. This had, apparently, been in the works for a long time and happened now because they waited until a new law went into effect giving the president the power to appoint interim Attorneys. The administration handled this poorly and doesn't seem aware of what was going on in his own department as his deputy plotted with the White House to fire some of these attorneys. Yes, Virginia, there is politics in political jobs.
And what a surprise; they go in front of Congress to say that there was no reason for their being fired.
But the hypocrisy of the Democrats moaning and groaning about the politicization of these jobs is just priceless. The Wall Street Journal reminds us today of how Bill Clinton handled the politicization of the justice system and US Attorneys. For all those with short memories, let us remember the first year of Clinton's presidency when he fired all 93 US Attorneys.
I work in the private sector. My boss can fire me because she is having a bad day. She does not need anyone's permission. These people have failed to prosecute leak cases, they have not prosecuted cases concerning everything from illegal immigration to voter fraud. I say it is time some of them got fired, just to put the fear of God in the rest of them. And while I agree that there was some ineptitude in the handling of the situation it should be noted that is not exactly unusual in government. If that were reason for throwing people out of government the Democrats would lose their majority right now.
This scandalette has seemed like a tempest in a teapot. Yes, it was ineptly handled and the indication that Senator Pete Domenici was calling the prosecutors to find out the course of cases is distasteful, but these were Bush-appointed attorneys and he had every right to fire them. This had, apparently, been in the works for a long time and happened now because they waited until a new law went into effect giving the president the power to appoint interim Attorneys. The administration handled this poorly and doesn't seem aware of what was going on in his own department as his deputy plotted with the White House to fire some of these attorneys. Yes, Virginia, there is politics in political jobs.
And what a surprise; they go in front of Congress to say that there was no reason for their being fired.
But the hypocrisy of the Democrats moaning and groaning about the politicization of these jobs is just priceless. The Wall Street Journal reminds us today of how Bill Clinton handled the politicization of the justice system and US Attorneys. For all those with short memories, let us remember the first year of Clinton's presidency when he fired all 93 US Attorneys.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
Reid Fails
I like the sound of that. Over at Power Line I came across the following news:
Harry Reid's resolution, which called for the withdrawal of all but a limited number of U.S. forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, has failed. The Senate rejected it by a vote of 50-48.
UPDATE: The Gregg Amendment, which I understand calls says that Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field, has passed 82–16. The Murray Amendment, which I understand calls for Congress to provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field, has passed 96-2.
JOHN adds: The roll call on Reid's resolution is here. The only Republican who voted for it was Gordon Smith of Oregon. Democratic defectors were Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor.
Oversight? "Overlook" is more like it.
From: American Thinker:
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman will continue his show trials masquerading as Congressional hearings tomorrow with a focus on the purported outing of CIA celebrity agent Valerie Plame by the White House and Office of the Vice-President. Apparently Waxman has limited access to simple facts. If Waxman had even a minimal desire to determine the truth, Joe Wilson would have been called to sit beside his wife and testify to their joint decision to go into electoral politics.
The primary responsibility for the protection of agents’ identities rests with the agents themselves. That is a fact hammered into all CIA employees from the moment they are hired. Valerie Plame Wilson initiated her own ‘outing’ by participating in her husband’s successful effort to become an advisor to the Kerry campaign. The precise moment in which she abandoned any pretense of being ‘undercover’ is difficult to determine, but it is safe to presume it occurred prior to May 2, 2003.
On that day, during a meeting of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, the Wilsons succeeded in inserting Joe Wilson into the electoral political process. They also made contact with New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof.
From Vanity Fair: “In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.”
The Wilsons pitched Ambassador Munchausen’s fable to Kristof and he bought it with the same degree of faith that won Walter Duranty (and the New York Times) a Pulitzer prize for publishing every lie Stalin’s propagandists fed him. The very gullible Kristof cobbled the Wilsons’ bogus concoction into an article in the New York Times, published on May 6, 2003. In that article Kristof stated:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disposed of Wilson’s fable on pages 443 – 444 of the report:
According to the Vanity Fair piece, both of the Wilsons were present with Kristof and it is reasonable to assume that Valerie Plame Wilson at least listened attentively as her husband provided politically loaded misinformation to a Times byline reporter. Mr. Wilson casually disclosed his wife’s maiden name in the preparation of numerous biographical sketches beginning with Who’s Who and including Corporate and Public Strategy Advisory Group, the Middle East Institute and the EPIC Forum. Twenty people provided biographical sketches as participants in the antiwar EPIC Forum on June 14, 2003, some three weeks prior to the publication of Wilson’s fable on the NY Times editorial page. Joseph Wilson was the only forum participant to include even a mention of a spouse, let alone her maiden name.
The Kerry Campaign must have been impressed with the Wilsons’ ability to gull a NY Times reporter by having source and confirmation share a common last name, for soon after Kristof’s article appeared, Wilson was named as an ‘advisor to the campaign’ and held that position until the exposure of his prevarications. Wilson’s status as a Kerry advisor, coupled with the Times own Kristof having swallowed Wilson’s tale whole, was sufficient for the Times to grant Wilson its editorial page on July 6th, 2003. The Wilsons, working together, had achieved a level of national notoriety based entirely upon their manipulation of the Kerry Campaign and the New York Times.
As Jim Marcinkowski, one of Plame’s classmates during their CIA training has noted, she’s “a hell of a shot with an AK-47”. There is no reason to disbelieve that assertion; however, ample evidence also exists that Wilson can shoot his mouth off at least as well as Plame can fire a rifle. Why did Plame not unload the weapon that was her husband’s mouth—aimed as it was at her identity as a CIA agent? Indeed, why did she apparently load it herself by suggesting Wilson for the trip to Niger?
One person had the primary responsibility for the protection of a CIA agent’s identity. Valerie Plame Wilson failed. One person was primarily responsible for the events and actions leading to the ‘outing’ of a CIA agent’s identity. Joe Wilson succeeded.
Chairman Waxman has chosen to investigate the circumstances that led to the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s relationship with the CIA for strictly political purposes. If the Chairman is seeking to protect other CIA personnel, Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband can provide a complete primer on what not to do. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson could be of great assistance by honestly and forthrightly answering some simple questions that should have been asked a very long time ago.
Based on what we know to date, Congressman Waxman’s decision to look to the White House will not bring us closer to any answers. That fact should not diminish the importance of the task for http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/about/default.aspx#members other members of the committee. If you recognize your representative’s name on that list, click it and send them a copy of this article along with a suggestion that they ask a few of the following questions.
Questions for Valerie Plame Wilson:
Since the CIA maintains an office which is responsible for contacts with the press, on what date did you report your May 2 and 3 contacts with Nicholas Kristof to that office?
Did you also inform that office of the nature of your contacts? Who did you speak to?
Specifically what did you report?
What is the procedure at the CIA for reporting that classified information has been compromised? What typically takes place after a report is made?
Have you ever followed that procedure? How many times, and on what dates?
Did you disclose the nature of the conversations between your husband and reporters to the CIA?
When did you first inform Joe Wilson that you worked for the CIA?
What did you tell him was the nature of your job at the agency?
When you informed him that you worked for the CIA, was he aware that you wanted to keep your identity protected?
Did you and he discuss the methods of keeping your identity protected?
Your name, Valerie Plame, was listed in Who’s Who in America from 1999 through 2005, under your husband’s listing? Did you seek special permission from the CIA to be included in that entry?
Did you accompany Joe Wilson to the 2003 EPIC Iraq forum?
Did your husband consult with you before including your maiden name in his bio published at that conference? Did you seek and obtain permission from the CIA for that disclosure?
Did you discuss this publication with your bosses at Langley?
Is it common practice for CIA agents to donate to political campaigns? When you contributed to the Gore campaign in 1999 under your own name, did you have any obligation to report that to your superiors?
At the time of the alleged disclosure by Richard Armitage that you worked at the agency, your husband was working for the Kerry campaign, correct?
Did you also donate money to Senator Kerry’s campaign? What about organizations trying to help elect Senator Kerry?
When you informed Joe Wilson that you worked at the CIA, did you file a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you became aware that your husband had identified you in Who’s Who in America, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that your husband had included your name in his bio for the EPIC Iraq forum, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that Joe Wilson had included your name in his bio at the Middle East Institute, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that your husband included your name in his bio with the CPS Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
At anytime did you, or anyone at the CIA, ask Joe Wilson to stop exposing your identity?
Only the Republican members of the Oversight Committee can prevent Congress from joining The New York Times and John Kerry on the Wilsons’ sucker list. We wish them well.
Jane Woodworth, Jeff Dobbs, Mara Schiffren and Rick Ballard collaborated on this article (with help from several Plame aficionados from Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute).
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman will continue his show trials masquerading as Congressional hearings tomorrow with a focus on the purported outing of CIA celebrity agent Valerie Plame by the White House and Office of the Vice-President. Apparently Waxman has limited access to simple facts. If Waxman had even a minimal desire to determine the truth, Joe Wilson would have been called to sit beside his wife and testify to their joint decision to go into electoral politics.
The primary responsibility for the protection of agents’ identities rests with the agents themselves. That is a fact hammered into all CIA employees from the moment they are hired. Valerie Plame Wilson initiated her own ‘outing’ by participating in her husband’s successful effort to become an advisor to the Kerry campaign. The precise moment in which she abandoned any pretense of being ‘undercover’ is difficult to determine, but it is safe to presume it occurred prior to May 2, 2003.
On that day, during a meeting of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, the Wilsons succeeded in inserting Joe Wilson into the electoral political process. They also made contact with New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof.
From Vanity Fair: “In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.”
The Wilsons pitched Ambassador Munchausen’s fable to Kristof and he bought it with the same degree of faith that won Walter Duranty (and the New York Times) a Pulitzer prize for publishing every lie Stalin’s propagandists fed him. The very gullible Kristof cobbled the Wilsons’ bogus concoction into an article in the New York Times, published on May 6, 2003. In that article Kristof stated:
“Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously. I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.”
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disposed of Wilson’s fable on pages 443 – 444 of the report:
... The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee. The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002.
... On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.”
... Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.
... The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.
... While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador.
... The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger- Iraq uranium deal.
According to the Vanity Fair piece, both of the Wilsons were present with Kristof and it is reasonable to assume that Valerie Plame Wilson at least listened attentively as her husband provided politically loaded misinformation to a Times byline reporter. Mr. Wilson casually disclosed his wife’s maiden name in the preparation of numerous biographical sketches beginning with Who’s Who and including Corporate and Public Strategy Advisory Group, the Middle East Institute and the EPIC Forum. Twenty people provided biographical sketches as participants in the antiwar EPIC Forum on June 14, 2003, some three weeks prior to the publication of Wilson’s fable on the NY Times editorial page. Joseph Wilson was the only forum participant to include even a mention of a spouse, let alone her maiden name.
The Kerry Campaign must have been impressed with the Wilsons’ ability to gull a NY Times reporter by having source and confirmation share a common last name, for soon after Kristof’s article appeared, Wilson was named as an ‘advisor to the campaign’ and held that position until the exposure of his prevarications. Wilson’s status as a Kerry advisor, coupled with the Times own Kristof having swallowed Wilson’s tale whole, was sufficient for the Times to grant Wilson its editorial page on July 6th, 2003. The Wilsons, working together, had achieved a level of national notoriety based entirely upon their manipulation of the Kerry Campaign and the New York Times.
As Jim Marcinkowski, one of Plame’s classmates during their CIA training has noted, she’s “a hell of a shot with an AK-47”. There is no reason to disbelieve that assertion; however, ample evidence also exists that Wilson can shoot his mouth off at least as well as Plame can fire a rifle. Why did Plame not unload the weapon that was her husband’s mouth—aimed as it was at her identity as a CIA agent? Indeed, why did she apparently load it herself by suggesting Wilson for the trip to Niger?
One person had the primary responsibility for the protection of a CIA agent’s identity. Valerie Plame Wilson failed. One person was primarily responsible for the events and actions leading to the ‘outing’ of a CIA agent’s identity. Joe Wilson succeeded.
Chairman Waxman has chosen to investigate the circumstances that led to the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s relationship with the CIA for strictly political purposes. If the Chairman is seeking to protect other CIA personnel, Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband can provide a complete primer on what not to do. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson could be of great assistance by honestly and forthrightly answering some simple questions that should have been asked a very long time ago.
Based on what we know to date, Congressman Waxman’s decision to look to the White House will not bring us closer to any answers. That fact should not diminish the importance of the task for http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/about/default.aspx#members other members of the committee. If you recognize your representative’s name on that list, click it and send them a copy of this article along with a suggestion that they ask a few of the following questions.
Questions for Valerie Plame Wilson:
Since the CIA maintains an office which is responsible for contacts with the press, on what date did you report your May 2 and 3 contacts with Nicholas Kristof to that office?
Did you also inform that office of the nature of your contacts? Who did you speak to?
Specifically what did you report?
What is the procedure at the CIA for reporting that classified information has been compromised? What typically takes place after a report is made?
Have you ever followed that procedure? How many times, and on what dates?
Did you disclose the nature of the conversations between your husband and reporters to the CIA?
When did you first inform Joe Wilson that you worked for the CIA?
What did you tell him was the nature of your job at the agency?
When you informed him that you worked for the CIA, was he aware that you wanted to keep your identity protected?
Did you and he discuss the methods of keeping your identity protected?
Your name, Valerie Plame, was listed in Who’s Who in America from 1999 through 2005, under your husband’s listing? Did you seek special permission from the CIA to be included in that entry?
Did you accompany Joe Wilson to the 2003 EPIC Iraq forum?
Did your husband consult with you before including your maiden name in his bio published at that conference? Did you seek and obtain permission from the CIA for that disclosure?
Did you discuss this publication with your bosses at Langley?
Is it common practice for CIA agents to donate to political campaigns? When you contributed to the Gore campaign in 1999 under your own name, did you have any obligation to report that to your superiors?
At the time of the alleged disclosure by Richard Armitage that you worked at the agency, your husband was working for the Kerry campaign, correct?
Did you also donate money to Senator Kerry’s campaign? What about organizations trying to help elect Senator Kerry?
When you informed Joe Wilson that you worked at the CIA, did you file a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you became aware that your husband had identified you in Who’s Who in America, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that your husband had included your name in his bio for the EPIC Iraq forum, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that Joe Wilson had included your name in his bio at the Middle East Institute, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
When you learned that your husband included your name in his bio with the CPS Corporate & Public Strategy Advisory Group, did you make a report that your identity had been compromised?
At anytime did you, or anyone at the CIA, ask Joe Wilson to stop exposing your identity?
Only the Republican members of the Oversight Committee can prevent Congress from joining The New York Times and John Kerry on the Wilsons’ sucker list. We wish them well.
Jane Woodworth, Jeff Dobbs, Mara Schiffren and Rick Ballard collaborated on this article (with help from several Plame aficionados from Tom Maguire’s Just One Minute).
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Journey From a Chinese Orphanage to a Jewish Rite of Passage - New York Times
Journey From a Chinese Orphanage to a Jewish Rite of Passage - New York Times
At last, someone to compete with my Choctaw-Jewish Buddhist thing.
At last, someone to compete with my Choctaw-Jewish Buddhist thing.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Yon posts a meditation on the media
It is a thoughtful post and well worth your time. His posts are now being excerpted on the Fox News site and he ties this together with what he hopes will happen to media coverage of the war.
Read the whole thing, and, as always, enjoy the evocative photos that Yon has interspersed in the post. Oh, and you can find out where LTC Erik Kurilla has gone to.
I don't see any long term alternative to the MSM, who have the money and resources that bloggers seldom do. Yon is an exception, both in motivation and talent. I suspect that in the long run the best of the amateurs will be taken up by the media. Michael Yon and Bill Roggio are making that transition and perhaps Michael Totten will follow at some point. This is cause for celebration. We are all in this together, and at some point we have to make our peace with the MSM. Perhaps that is starting to happen.
[nothing follows]
Huge amounts of blog-energy go into attacks on mainstream media war coverage that might be better spent ignoring the irritant and offering alternative sources, in view of how critical any and all media coverage is to shaping public opinion which in turn determines the outcome of this war. These skirmishes between mainstream and alternative media produce only friendly fire casualties, and neither side can claim a monopoly on accuracy and objectivity. While the reliability and/or agendas of many mainstream media sources are questionable, the blogworld is also often too eager to anoint anyone who’s not mainstream as a guru-of-something. If this were the art-world, it would be like anointing anyone with some skill at putting brush to canvas as the “new Rembrandt.”
But the dirty secret known to only a few is that many of these “new Rembrandts” are clever forgeries. Some bloggers who advertise themselves as war correspondents with numerous “embeds” in the war, with the implication that they’ve spent more time on the ground than their mainstream war correspondent counterparts, mostly have spent very little time here, especially in comparison to those mainstream war correspondents.
This week, journalists are all around this area—ABC, Fox, New York Times, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Stars & Stripes (DoD publication) and others, all flagships—but where are the bloggers? Prohibitive costs, very high risks, and an increasingly shrinking market for the work probably contribute to the poor showing. Will the blog-world still maintain the attack on coverage from the mainstream media? Instead of looking for mistakes in some coverage, the common cause might be better served by well-informed bloggers searching all sources for the reports that get it right and driving readers to those.
Read the whole thing, and, as always, enjoy the evocative photos that Yon has interspersed in the post. Oh, and you can find out where LTC Erik Kurilla has gone to.
I don't see any long term alternative to the MSM, who have the money and resources that bloggers seldom do. Yon is an exception, both in motivation and talent. I suspect that in the long run the best of the amateurs will be taken up by the media. Michael Yon and Bill Roggio are making that transition and perhaps Michael Totten will follow at some point. This is cause for celebration. We are all in this together, and at some point we have to make our peace with the MSM. Perhaps that is starting to happen.
[nothing follows]
Yes, still awake at 1:00 am..
...and thinking. Since Daylight Savings Time takes up nearly two thirds of the year, shouldn't the "Sprung Forward" days be called "Standard Time", and then in early November we can go on "Daylight Wasting Time"?
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Gringo Go Home
That was one of the signs greeting Bush in Latin America. Imagine the reaction if a president from some country south of the border were to come to the United States and be met by a screaming loon holding a sign that said something like wetback go home. Outrage ofcourse. Why the UN might need to get involved.
I don't know if it would make a big difference if a Democrat were in the White House or not. I know Democrats say it would. They say the world would like us better. People would be more welcoming if someone like Hillary Clinton were President instead of the infamous Bushitler. Maybe, or maybe the left is just blackmailing us...vote for our guy or we will send out our global minions to act stupid. Yep, that'll show us.
Needless to say we do not have to look south to see that kind of behavior. We can see it here in the US or in Europe. AntiAmericanism is easy and cost free. But in one respect I think the Democrats might be out of luck here, I think a growing number of Americans look at those scenes and they don't just blame Bush {that is too easy}...they are thinking to themselves...right back at you moron. The Left sees the righteously indignant while a great many other Americans see thugs and ingrates and anarchists. After all, what did we ever do to Venezuala they say? The Sandinistas? They were not innocent, in fact they were murderers. And murder is not uncommon in that part of the world. Oh no, when it comes to murder they certainly do not need any help from us, they do a great job of that all by themselves.
In truth I am tired of Latin America and its endless crises. There were cities in Latin America when the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock. What happened? Maybe the legacy of Europe in South and Central America will not only be the languages such as Spanish and Portugese, maybe it is also a feudalistic and corrupt society based on a caste system straight out of old Europe. But whatever the problems the tired old shtick of blaming the gringo is getting a tad annoying. After all it is not as if they are talking about building walls to keep gringos out of Latin America..no it is the other way around.
I have always been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but needless to say hearing some Mayan priest say he will have to purify Mayan sites after Bush has been there because the president has persecuted our migrants is just the kind of thing to make the nativists go bonkers. Talk about bad PR. They love our money but they hate us. I for one am past the point of trying to make these people like me. This is a failing of Americans, the desire to be liked, and I think it is time we got over it. To hell with 'em.
I don't know if it would make a big difference if a Democrat were in the White House or not. I know Democrats say it would. They say the world would like us better. People would be more welcoming if someone like Hillary Clinton were President instead of the infamous Bushitler. Maybe, or maybe the left is just blackmailing us...vote for our guy or we will send out our global minions to act stupid. Yep, that'll show us.
Needless to say we do not have to look south to see that kind of behavior. We can see it here in the US or in Europe. AntiAmericanism is easy and cost free. But in one respect I think the Democrats might be out of luck here, I think a growing number of Americans look at those scenes and they don't just blame Bush {that is too easy}...they are thinking to themselves...right back at you moron. The Left sees the righteously indignant while a great many other Americans see thugs and ingrates and anarchists. After all, what did we ever do to Venezuala they say? The Sandinistas? They were not innocent, in fact they were murderers. And murder is not uncommon in that part of the world. Oh no, when it comes to murder they certainly do not need any help from us, they do a great job of that all by themselves.
In truth I am tired of Latin America and its endless crises. There were cities in Latin America when the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock. What happened? Maybe the legacy of Europe in South and Central America will not only be the languages such as Spanish and Portugese, maybe it is also a feudalistic and corrupt society based on a caste system straight out of old Europe. But whatever the problems the tired old shtick of blaming the gringo is getting a tad annoying. After all it is not as if they are talking about building walls to keep gringos out of Latin America..no it is the other way around.
I have always been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but needless to say hearing some Mayan priest say he will have to purify Mayan sites after Bush has been there because the president has persecuted our migrants is just the kind of thing to make the nativists go bonkers. Talk about bad PR. They love our money but they hate us. I for one am past the point of trying to make these people like me. This is a failing of Americans, the desire to be liked, and I think it is time we got over it. To hell with 'em.
Greyhawk sets the record straight
Greyhawk over at Mudville sits the story straight on the remarks made by General Petraeus concerning a military solution in Iraq.
So is Pelosi lying or is she just full of it when she says that Bush's threatened veto of her newest retreat plan is out of line with his new commander's stance? Let's just say, I don't think Grandma Nancy is stupid.
So is Pelosi lying or is she just full of it when she says that Bush's threatened veto of her newest retreat plan is out of line with his new commander's stance? Let's just say, I don't think Grandma Nancy is stupid.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Death threats for climate skeptics
Yes, it has come to that.
Not that surprising, really, and no doubt related to this other headline at Drudge, NEW HOLLYWOOD BAD GUYS: ENVIRONMENTAL VILLAINS... DEVELOPING...(no link given).
Every public figure probably receives death threats because the world is full of loonies, and I don't mean Canadian dollars. Even so, it is strange that climate scientists should be receiving such threats. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing; everyone reads about tyrannical regimes and the heroes who resisted, and no doubt most of us like to think we would be among the good guys. I expect 100% of academics think they would be among that hallowed band, and now they have the oportunity to discover if they truly have the moral balls they think they do. Lysenkoism in its modern guise is no joke. Who will support the skeptics? Who will resist the political temptations and their attendent trappings of money and power? We will find out.
Update:
Comments on reactions here. Apparently Durkin wanted to name the show Apocalypse My Arse. Note on Durkin, he was associated with the magazine Living Marxism, so perhaps a Marxist of the classic sort. Durkin responds to these revelations:
Heh. It is worth remembering that Marx was a great proponent of industrialization as an improvement over peasant farming. That is why the USSR and its imitators sold themselves as the way to the industrial future, it just didn't work out all that well. Anyway, you can see that point of view at the end of the show where the Greens are painted as Luddite villains holding back third world development. The Spiked Magazine interview with Durkin is here.
h/t: under the whip in the comment thread at Tim Blair.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
Not that surprising, really, and no doubt related to this other headline at Drudge, NEW HOLLYWOOD BAD GUYS: ENVIRONMENTAL VILLAINS... DEVELOPING...(no link given).
Every public figure probably receives death threats because the world is full of loonies, and I don't mean Canadian dollars. Even so, it is strange that climate scientists should be receiving such threats. Perhaps it is not such a bad thing; everyone reads about tyrannical regimes and the heroes who resisted, and no doubt most of us like to think we would be among the good guys. I expect 100% of academics think they would be among that hallowed band, and now they have the oportunity to discover if they truly have the moral balls they think they do. Lysenkoism in its modern guise is no joke. Who will support the skeptics? Who will resist the political temptations and their attendent trappings of money and power? We will find out.
Update:
Comments on reactions here. Apparently Durkin wanted to name the show Apocalypse My Arse. Note on Durkin, he was associated with the magazine Living Marxism, so perhaps a Marxist of the classic sort. Durkin responds to these revelations:
‘Shock, horror’, he says. ‘Exposing that a journalist has a Marxist background is like exposing that he wears trousers.’
Heh. It is worth remembering that Marx was a great proponent of industrialization as an improvement over peasant farming. That is why the USSR and its imitators sold themselves as the way to the industrial future, it just didn't work out all that well. Anyway, you can see that point of view at the end of the show where the Greens are painted as Luddite villains holding back third world development. The Spiked Magazine interview with Durkin is here.
h/t: under the whip in the comment thread at Tim Blair.
What if it works?
Robert Kagan has a good article on the surge and its possible success.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.
As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."
Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."
It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.
No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?
read it all.Where's Audie Murphy?
I watched "The Departed" last night.
That's it? That's the best movie the film industry could produce in 2006? For six long years our military faces down evil incarnate on the battlefields of Afganistan and Iraq (and sundry other places) and Hollywood cannot find a story in there to rival this preposterous tale of some tawdry murdering criminals???
We really are in a quagmire.
UPDATE:
Here's some raw material that would provide the basis for a better movie:
*SMITH, PAUL R.
Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States ArmyFor conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
That's it? That's the best movie the film industry could produce in 2006? For six long years our military faces down evil incarnate on the battlefields of Afganistan and Iraq (and sundry other places) and Hollywood cannot find a story in there to rival this preposterous tale of some tawdry murdering criminals???
We really are in a quagmire.
UPDATE:
Here's some raw material that would provide the basis for a better movie:
*SMITH, PAUL R.
Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States ArmyFor conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The Great Global Warming Swindle
EU Referendum liked the UK, Channel 4 program.
They say no more, but it makes me wish that we might have the chance to see that program over here.
Update: The whole programme can be viewed here.
It is highly appropriate, therefore, that, while the colleagues were dining, back here in the UK, Channel 4 Television was showing a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which was the most effective popular debunking of the Global Warming Scam I have ever seen.
What came over with crystal clarity from the programme was the fragility of the science supporting the global warming thesis, and the strength of the science supporting the arguments that the primary driver of climate change was the sun.
They say no more, but it makes me wish that we might have the chance to see that program over here.
Update: The whole programme can be viewed here.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Will Britain need a constitution?
From EUSOC
This was not a binding vote, it is simply the will of the Parliament. But if the House of Lords is to elected I suspect there will need to be some document laying out their powers, districts, terms, etc. I suppose they could remain much the same, but what is the point of electing people to a ceremonial position? Might as well leave the Lords appointed if there are no other changes.
I have felt somewhat opposed to this move simply on account of the importance of traditions in a stable society. Nonetheless, such a development is interesting and I wonder how they are going to manage it. Britain has a parliamentary system with almost all powers currently in the hands of the prime minister and his party. So it is not anything like the US and it is hard to see how an elected upper house would fit in if it were to be given a legislative role.
What next, the Monarchy?
British MPs have voted for wholesale changes to the way the country is governed, with a large majority of parliamentarians supporting a 100 percent elected upper house.
Jack Straw, the Commons Leader, has said that he can't "put the genie back in the bottle" and will press ahead with change.
This was not a binding vote, it is simply the will of the Parliament. But if the House of Lords is to elected I suspect there will need to be some document laying out their powers, districts, terms, etc. I suppose they could remain much the same, but what is the point of electing people to a ceremonial position? Might as well leave the Lords appointed if there are no other changes.
I have felt somewhat opposed to this move simply on account of the importance of traditions in a stable society. Nonetheless, such a development is interesting and I wonder how they are going to manage it. Britain has a parliamentary system with almost all powers currently in the hands of the prime minister and his party. So it is not anything like the US and it is hard to see how an elected upper house would fit in if it were to be given a legislative role.
What next, the Monarchy?
Historical Perspective
While we sit back and watch the hypocritical preening of the Democrats over the Libby conviction it might be useful to take a look at the last Democratic President and his rather ethically challenged administrations:
When Ken Starr's investigation began getting too close to Mr. Clinton, the Washington "spin doctors" began working hard at turning public opinion away from Ken Starr and turn popular opinion against the investigator. Liberals constantly pointed to the millions of dollars Ken Starr has spent in his investigation, but has come up empty handed.
That may sound good to many undiscerning people, but the fact remains, the Starr investigations and others have turned up volumes of corruption in Federal Government and there have been indictments and convictions. Starr had gotten 11 indictments yielding 3 trial convictions, 6 guilty pleas, and 2 acquittals. The Clinton administration may indeed be the most indicted administration in history.
When Ken Starr's investigation began getting too close to Mr. Clinton, the Washington "spin doctors" began working hard at turning public opinion away from Ken Starr and turn popular opinion against the investigator. Liberals constantly pointed to the millions of dollars Ken Starr has spent in his investigation, but has come up empty handed.
That may sound good to many undiscerning people, but the fact remains, the Starr investigations and others have turned up volumes of corruption in Federal Government and there have been indictments and convictions. Starr had gotten 11 indictments yielding 3 trial convictions, 6 guilty pleas, and 2 acquittals. The Clinton administration may indeed be the most indicted administration in history.
Clinton's apologists claimed that Ken Starr had drug this investigation out over a period of months, costing millions of dollars with no results. But, it was the president, not Ken Starr who dragged America through 7 months of allegations and counterallegations of sexual impropriety and abuse of power. Had Mr. Clinton told the truth in the first place and not sent out his supporters to lie for him, Starr's investigation would have been greatly shortened and the American people would not have been drug into the sexual perversions of the President. Following his testimony before the grand jury, Bill Clinton went on national television and admitted to his lies. Yet, even in that so-called 'apology', Mr. Clinton angrily continued his attack on Ken Starr.
The Captain is right
Ed Morrisey has taken a somewhat different view than others concerning the Libby trial. He is not as familiar as some with some of the details of the case, but I do think he has a better grasp of the political effects of this case than many others do. I know there are people out there who believe that Bush should say to hell with political consequences and pardon Libby right now, but I think the Captain has a point. I think the whole trial was a farce, but I also think that Libby should have just said I don't remember.
In his first comments on the case since the verdict, Bush told CNN en Español that he has to "respect that conviction" but that he "was sad for a man who had worked in my administration." Bush did not rule out a pardon but implied that it is not imminent. "I'm pretty much going to stay out of it until the course -- the case has finally run its final -- the course it's going to take," he told Univision during an interview before a trip to Latin America that begins today.
Undoubtedly, this will make many Republicans unhappy. Many CQ readers insisted that Bush should act immediately on a pardon, arguing that the prosecution was abusive enough to justify quick action. Some critics noted the Clinton pardon of financier Marc Rich, who never returned to the US to stand trial, as evidence that Bush would be well within precedent to act before the courts finish with their processes. Ironically, Libby represented Rich during the effort to gain a pardon from Bill Clinton. Bush's father didn't wait for Caspar Weinberger to come to trial, either, although that may have had more to do with getting some payback against the special prosecutor who deliberately timed his indictment just prior to the presidential election.
A pardon at this stage would seem like an endorsement of the notion that Libby cannot win an appeal. It plays against Libby in the long run, although I'm certain Libby's team does not agree. If an appellate court reverses Libby's conviction, either by ordering a new trial or by issuing an outright dismissal, he wins in a much more public and substantial manner than a presidential pardon can provide.
Politically, a pardon would create all sorts of problems with Congress, and while that bothers some people, it's simply a political truth. At the moment, Bush is using all of his meager political capital to keep the Iraq War from getting defunded, and at the moment, he's succeeding. If he pardoned Libby at this point, while passions are running hottest about the conviction, he risks splintering his own coalition at a critical time. Libby won't even get sentenced for another three months. and he likely will not go to prison while his appeals are being heard.
Bush is keeping his options open, and it's the smart thing.I know no one asks for my advice
But I think that there are some party faithful out there in the Republican ranks who should listen to Medved and what he has to say in this article.
There is a growing tendency among some true believers out there to make the rest of us feel positively unwanted until that election comes around and then we are not so bad. Sorta. They have to hold their noses a bit, but what the hell every vote counts.
There is a growing tendency among some true believers out there to make the rest of us feel positively unwanted until that election comes around and then we are not so bad. Sorta. They have to hold their noses a bit, but what the hell every vote counts.
Trouble in Paradise
Some bad news for the embattled President and I am not talking about Bush, this is from Crosspatch over at Strata Sphere , it couldn't happen to a nicer guy as they say:
I suppose that old saw “when it rains, it pours” is an apt description of the problems facing the Iranian president these days. A strategic level military leader has apparently fled the country with his family, he is under renewed attack from his political opposition for his handling of the economy, the teachers arestriking demonstrating, the meeting with the King of Saudi Arabia apparently went badly and now we have news that he has possibly alienated the Syrians and the alliance with Syria could be under some strain. None of the items individually are show-stoppers but taken together they are a telling commentary of a government that appears to be coming apart at the seams.
I suppose that old saw “when it rains, it pours” is an apt description of the problems facing the Iranian president these days. A strategic level military leader has apparently fled the country with his family, he is under renewed attack from his political opposition for his handling of the economy, the teachers are
An Arab Poet
Scott over at Power Line has a post up on a Tom Friedman article for the NYT which includes the following poem, they ain't all beyond hope.
Friedman concludes the column with a biting poem:
Friedman concludes the column with a biting poem:
Occasionally an honest voice rises, giving you a glimmer of hope that others will stand up. The MEMRI translation Web site just posted a poem called “When,” from a Saudi author, Wajeha al-Huwaider, that was posted on Arab reform sites like www.aafaq.org.When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner — you know that you are in an Arab country.
When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.
When religion has control over science — you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.
When clerics are referred to as “scholars” — don’t be astonished, you are in an Arab country.
When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and nobody is permitted to criticize — do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.
When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery — do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.
When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...
When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less — do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country. ...
When land is more important than human beings — you are in an Arab country. ...
When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people — you can be certain you are in an Arab country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)