HUD and the Despicable AP: How to Hype a Resignation

Does it matter much to anyone tat the HUD Secretary has resigned?  Don't be silly.  But look at the over the top way the despicable Associated Press put it:

"The Bush administration's top housing official, under criminal investigation and intense pressure from Democratic critics, announced Monday he is quitting."

Can you do AnY worse, "journalistically", than the above sentence.  I think it would be hard.  You get NO facts--not even the guy's name.  You get the pejorative word, "quitting", instead of themore neutral, "resigned."   You do NOT get the relatively neutral reference to this guy as HUD (Housing and Ubran Development) Secretary.  Instead you get the amorphous, and somewhat inaccurate, "top housing official."  For example, HUD has little to do with PRIVATE HOUSING.  Its main function is with regard to PUBLIC HOUSING, or publicly subsidized housing.  It has NOTHING tod do with private mortgages or banking regulation.  In other words, HUD had nothing, or very little, to do with the current "housing crisis", under any conceivable circumstances.  Then there is that innuendo about "under criminal investigation".  All in all:  how to do a modern day, reprehensible "journalistic" hatchet job in one sentence.  If you want to know all you need to know about modern "journalism", the above sentence tells you.

Has anyone ever heard of the HUD Secretary?  I haven't, except vaguelly.

Note the innuendo over being under "crminal investigation."  That is NOT an "official" term in the first place, and does not even represent a criminal charge (as to which innocence is supposed to be presumed).  The fact that this FBI "examination" of this guys "ties" to a transaction is now two years old would suggest a lack of evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  In other words, there is NOTHING legally relevant about the term, "criminal investigation".  You can't do anything about it. In one sense, EVERY PERSON in the country is constantly under "criminal investigatiion".  Ther term is merely a way of saying that a criminal investigating agency is actively looking at whether there is any reason to file criminal charges with regard to some set of circumstances.   One of my pet peeves about modern "journalism" is their attempt to make a term like this IMPLY WRONGDOING, as if the term is legally significant.  It is NOT.

Does this resignation tell you antything about the economy?  Of course not.  The HUD Secretary has little to do with the economy.  Would a different HUD Secretary have mattered AT ALL in the husing/credit crisis?  Of course not.

Who knows how well Jackson did his actual job (a job one suspects mostly has little to do with how HUD operates, as with most Federal agencies).

Bashing Limbaugh (or is it really bashing McCain and "moderate" Republicans?)

Although Rush Limbaugh is the conservative figure in the country today that I respect most as a leader of conservative thought,  I have decided to make today "bash Limbaugh" day on this blog.  The fact is that Rush says so many things every day, and has to try to make them all sound interesting, that he is bound to go off the track some of the time--even to the point of saying some actually stupid things.

Rush has gone down that road to stupidity again today--again promoting an old stupidity which I think Rush knows is stupid.  He is just unable to help himself, and he thinks it makes for a more successful radio program.

What if Hohn McCain wins the Presidency?  Well, Limbaugh has said--correctly--that this may well mean the death of the Republican Party/conservative movement as we know it.  At times, Rush has made the obvious inference that this means that conservatives will be better off if McCain LOSES (the position of this blog).  As Rush has pointed out, McCain might actually pass MORE leftish legislation, trying to be "bipartisan" and "get things done", than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could get passed (over determined Republican opposition).  That is because Republicans are not, as a general rule, going to be able to repudiate their own President (as they have not been able to repudiate President Bush on ridiculous new programs such as the Medicare Drug Benefit Program).

Yes, Limbaugh has said what I say in the above paragraph (better than I can say it).  However, he also regularly says the OPPOSITE--as if he either can't stomach actually coming out against electing McCain, or thinks that his audience will not really stand for him to suggest that they should vote for a Democrat for real (not just part of "operation chaos").  This systemic inconsistency leads Rush into further, greater stupidities.

Today, Rush indicated that McCain was relying on conservatives to actively take on the Democrats, by exposing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (Reverend Wright, snipergate, etc.), while also engaging in tactical moves such as "operation chaos."  Rush even went on today to say that conservatives are "glad to do it", because we can't stand for those leftist Democrats to win. 

Well, Limbaugh is wrong there.  I am not "glad to do it" in the sense of helping elect McCain.  It hurts me to help McCain.  But I refuse to give leftists a pass on THEIR STUPDITY, and wrong headed notions, just because I would prefer Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United Sates (for the long term good of the conservative movement). Even I can't quite stomach Obama, although I will never vote for McCain.

Rush Limbaugh's own words make it obvious that it is not clear that either conservatives or the country will be better off with McCain.  So it is entirely logical to suggest that it is McCAIN who conservatives should not be able to "stand" being elected.  That is what is a little funy about Rush (and he is smart enough to realize he is doing this).  He can passionately say that McCain will mean the death of the Republican Party, as we know it, and still suggest that conservatives HAVE to oppose the election of Obama or Clinton--equally passionately.  It got worse today.

Rush noted that, if McCain wins, "moderate" and lilberal Republicans will assert that as evidence that they don't need conservatives--don't need to pay any attention to what conservatives in the Repubican Party wants.  Rush, today, then said this was WRONG.  He went off on this long analysis as to how McCain could not possibly win withoug counting on conservatives to take on the Democrats in a way that McCain will not--including Rush's own "operation chaos."  In fact, Rush said today that McCain is undoubtedly counting on conservatives to be the "bad cop" (my term) for McCain's "good cop".

This analysis by Rush is, of course, STUPID (however correct he may be that a McCain victory will owe a lot to conservatives like Rush himself). 

Liberal and "moderate" Republicans are never going to say that they don't "need" conservatives in the Republican Party.  In fact, as Limbaugh says, they COUNT on the votes/aid of conservatives.  However, their argument is that the Repubican Party does not need to pay much attention to what conservatives WANT.  That is because conservatives have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO (unless they want to do what Rush says is unacceptable:  elect a leftist Democrat).  The moderate/liberal argument is that Repubicans should run moderate CANDIDATES, and take "moderate" POSITIONS, because that is the way to WIN elections.  The idea is that you will ALWAYS get the conservative vote, but that you need "centrists" to appeal to the great "modertate" majority out there. 

Is the above position not validated by a McCain victory?  Of coure it is.  It does not matter that conservatives are necessary for McCain to win, and may even be the major moving force behind a McCain victory.  That merely validates the moderate case that they can count on conservatives, while conservative candidates cannot count on "moderates". 

Okay, one of Limbaugh's motivaitons here is to blow his own horn as to the perceived success of "operation chaos."  Still, is it not STUPID to argue that a McCain victory does not help the "moderate" case?  Of course it is.  And Limbaugh says other things that make me believe he realizes this (such as the idea that you cannot beat Democrats, in the long run, by adopting a "light" version of their policies, as distinguished from convincing more people that conservative policies are right--meaning that every VICTORY by someone like McCain undercuts that idea).

HOW have "moderates" gotten in this position of what they see as potential "control" of the Repubican Party?  It seems to me that they have gotten to this point by being willing to LOSE elections rather than support a conservative (evidenced more on a state and local level than the Presidential elections, as there has been no truely conservative, Republican candidate for President since Ronald Reagan). 

Since a McCain victory is necessarily, despite what Rush says, a valdiation of the "moderate" view of a winning strategy, what can derail that strategy?  Clearly only one thing.  Conservatives have to be willing to see Repubicans LOSE.   It is ONLY when "moderate" candidates LOSE that the "moderate" strategy is exposed as a failure. 

Now both Rush and I would argue that the "moderate" strategy ULTIMATELY is a LOSING strategy condemning the Republican Party to permanent minority status (as was the case from FDR to Ronald Reagan).  Note, however, that this means that Republicans must ultimately LOSE.  So why not now?  Why drag it out, and destroy the conservative movement in the process?  Would it not be better to LOSE now, iwth McCain (as "moderate" Republicans have regularly decided with regard to conservative candidates), than to have a McCain victory destroy the conservative movement (and ultimately the Republican Party as we have known it). I don't say this is an easy question, but it is a decision that conservatives have to make, AT SOME POINT, or condemn themselves to little influence in the Republican Party (however much the support of conservatives may be relied up to elect "moderates").

What makes this HARD?  You know the anwer to that.  "Moderate"/liberal Republicans have little trouble voting for a Democrat.  Their views are not much different from Democrats anyway--a matter of nuance.  On the other hand, it HURTS conservatives to vote for a Democrat that they KNOW will be bad for the country.  

Thus, I believe Rush Limbaugh is now fully aware of this dilemma.  However, it is such a painful one that he prefers to pretty much ignore it--saying contradictory things every day to aovid facing the issue directly.  Thus, you have today's "whistling through the graveyard" statements that a  McCain victory will be because of conservatives--as if that were not simply a validation of the "moderate" strategy for "victory".

I will try to refrain from further Limbaugh bashing for a little while--extreme provocation excepted--as  I think I have done enough for now.   I felt compelled to do these last two entries because, in my opinion, these two issues represent the two most fundamental, unresolvedm, long term CONTRADICTIONS in the Limbaugh view of the world.  One is the above analyzed contradiction about how much to cave in to "moderate" Republicans to avoid the "greater evil" of electing liberal Democrats.  The other is a justified distrust of "corporate elites" warring with the instinct to DEFEND business (including big business) against all major criticism (especially from leftists).

Both contradictions in Limbaugh's world view arise from an instictive desire (sort of like Robert E. Lee) to attack the enemy, wherever they are.  Then there is Limbaugh's instinctive grasp of what is best for his radio program, where subtle inconsistencies surely matter less than a consistent, passionate optimism.    

 

Rush Limbaugh: Stupid?

Rush Limbaugh is not always right.  In fact, sometimes he is very wrong (hence this blog's superior accuracy rating of 99.1%, compared to Limbaugh's 98.8%).  I have informed you in this blog how Limbaugh abandoned conservatives, so far as providing guidance, in a critical part of the Republican nomination, resulting in the truly revolting "chocie" this Presidential election between John McCain and whomever.

Sometimes, Limbaugh simply lets his desire to say things in a provcative way lead him into error (some amy sometimes make the same criticism of this blog).  A case in point was Limbaugh's rant on Friday.

Limbaugh's basic point, as usual, was valid.  He was trying to make the point that leftists are constantly negative on the U.S.A., and are never proud of any aspect of our country.  They don't even seem to WANT to be "proud" of anything about this country, except people giving them the POWER to control every aspect of our lives through a massive, all powerful Federal Government.

However, this theme of Limbaugh (it is not new, of course) leads him to a corollary which is FALSE--falacious.  That corollary was expressed on FRiday in terms of:  "When is the last time you said you were "proud" of our drug companies;  when is the last time you said you were proud of our oil companies."

Limbaugh has often expressed the idea that we should be thankful/grateful for oil companies providing us with oil (which he calls the "engine of freedom"), and to drug companies for providing us with the drugs to cure our illnesses.

This is all nonsense.  It leads to the idea that private enterprise can do no wrong just because it is private enterprise.  As I have told you, private bureaucracies are not inherently better than government bureaucracies.  They are merely less dangerous, because their mistakes are correcteed by the operation of the free market.  In fact, the more BIG MERGERS we allow, the less effectivelly free market theory (based on a large number of free market units, ooperating in their own self interest, arrive at a correct allocation of resources, by an "invisible hand"--necessarily assuming that none of those free market units is so large as to be able to influence a market all by itself) works, even theoretically.

Does free market theory suggest that corporations are acting for the benefit of us all.  Yes and no. It suggests that that is the EFFECT, but NOT that free market businesses are intentionally out to advance the "public good".  No, I am NOT saying that people in corporations do not care about the public good.  I am saying that free market theory FAILS if business people are deliberately trying to advance a public policy agenda, as distinguished from producting good products at good prices.

So it makes no sense to say that we should be "proud" of drug companies for doing what they are supposed to do, in their own self-interest.  Am I "proud" of Wal-Mart for helping people buy products at reasonable prices?  Not exactly.  Unlike leftists, I don't HATE them for it.  However, what I am PROUD of is our FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM for producing all of those wonderful products, at reasonable prices.  Sure, individual companies should be proud of what they accoplish, but to pretend that drug companies deserve GRATITUDE for producing products to make themselves money is simply STUPID.  It misses the whole point.  We should be thankful for our SYSTEM of politicall freedom and free enterprise, rather than encouraging sophistry about how big business is doing these great things for us for which we should be grateful.

Now should we be personally thankful for the farmers (mainly big farming businesses, in our modern world), provide us so much food, so efficiently?  In one sense, obviously yes; but  in another sense, we should be grateful to the SYSTEM.  Should we be personally grateful to a drug copany that produces a cure for cancer?  Again, in one sense yes; but in a fundamental sense it is our SYSTEM to which we should be grateful.  Under our free enterprises system, as it is SUPPOSED to work (meanint not distorting it with big mergers), the companies that provide us benefit should prosper, while others FAIL. 

Limabaugh even had the nerve to suggest that we should be PROUD of the U.S. auto industry.  Give me a break.  We should be proud that our system, with the aid of JAPANESE companies, finally forced the BUREAUCRATIC, FEDERAL GOERNMENT TYPE oligopoly (3 copanies controlling an entire industry, after multiple mergers) to compete in a free market.  The auto industry is actually a prime example of how powerful private bureaucracies are not any better than a government bureaucracy.

Shold we be "proud" of our brokerage firms, morgagage compaines, and banks which ignored the nummerous warmingsigns of a housing/credit "bubble"--letting greed totally overwhlem their common sense?  "Proud" is simply not the right word.  No, we should NOT look upon these business failures as EVIL.  They are a normal part of the SELF-CORRECTING mechanism of the free market. 

This is not mere hair splitting.  This tendency of Republicans to look upon business as "good" is actually STUPID, and leads to unreasonable expectations.   Business, and big corporations, are not inherently good or inherently bad.  The free enterprise system is inherently good.  This is NOT because businesses do not make BAD mistakes.  It is because the system itself CORRECTS these mistatkes in a manner best calculated to lead to the efficient use of resources.  The ore big mergers we allow, the LESS this self-correcting mechanism works (look at how, in the "credit crisis", it is already suggested that certain financial institutions are "too big" to fail, as Chrysler was once deemed "too big to fail").

Take the oil industry.  Should we be grateful to them for making money by producing oil, gas, and gasoline?  Don't be silly.  Just as we should not hate them for making money providing us with what we need, they are not really due gratitude.  To even suggest that is to misunderstand how the free market works.  What we should worry about, as conservatives, is that MERGERS (NOT efficiency in drilling for oil) amy have materially hurt the free market in oil, gasoline, refining, etc. 

Nope.  This idea tha big business, or any business, is inherently "good" is just stupid.  Some businesses opeate better, and more ethically, than others.  It is inevitable that they will ALL make mistakes.  The beauty of the free market, if we don't allow things like big mergers to destroy the ability of free market theory to operate, is that the mistakes are not perpetuated, but automatically corrected. 

I can be proud of the accomplishments of our free enterprise system. In fact, I am.  I can even be proud of the individual accomplishments of the people of individual copanies.  But it is just nonsense for me to be "proud" of our drug companies, big oil companies, telecommunications companies, as some sort of pride in American business.  Yes, the idea is that our SYSTEM (entire system, political and economic) will enable us to COMPETE in a WORLD free market. And I AM proud that we are still able to do that, and that American businesses are meeting the challenges of a world economy.  It is STILL nonsense to be "proud" of individual industries or companies or industries on some sort of general basis (as distinguished from being proud of individual ACCOMPLISHMENTS, or our overall system).

As Limbaugh well knows, the way our SYSTEM is being undermined by leftist ideology NEGATIVE toward the U.S.A., capitalism, and business, is a worrisome thing.  If Democrats gain complete control of the country, or their philosophy does under the "leadership" of a John McCain, our ability to compete in a world free market is likely to be undermined.

Where I differ with Limbaugh is with the idea that it is PRIDE in American companies that we need.  What we need is PRIDE in our country and our SYSTEM.  More important even than that is that more people UNDERSTAND how our system is supposed to work (which automatically means not expecting things to be perfect, or for the government to be able to make them perfect).  

I just don't think this somewhat jingoistic cheerleading of Limbaugh for American industry is helpful.  In fact, I stand behind my view that it is STUPID (although Limbaugh is, overall, one of the more brilliant men around).

P.S.  You think I am wrong/exaggerating about the above?   Oh, ye of little faith.  Rush started off today talking about how the people who really make this country work:  the SMALL buinesses which hire most of the people--the smaller, free market theory type units I refer to above--as distinguished from the "corporate elites".  Rush is schizophrenic this way.  He will spend an entire day ranting about how Big Oil is SERVING America, and we should be grateful, and then TRASH the "corporate elites".  No, you can't reconcile theese two points of view.  Rush does not even try.  He simply ignores the inconsistency.  Whenever he goes off on a rant against government, ALL business suddenly becomes "good".  Then he backs off, and appears to recognize that big corporate brureaucrats/empire builders are no better than government bureaucrats/empire builders.  I stand by what I say:  I wish Rush would ore consistently stand for free market theory, instead of periodically being led into an uncritical defense of big business as providig all of these good things for us that government is not providing.

Catholics and Muslims: Missing the Forest for the Trees

THE Drudge main headline tonight (sometimes Drudge is as bad as the rest of the media at hyping non-news) is that Muslims have overtaken Catholics as the "single" (can you call it that when there are separte Muslims sects FIGHTING EACH OTHER in Iraq?) largest religion in the world.  So what.  Here is the strange way a Vatican spokesman put it (the Vatican evidently announced the "news"):

"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," Formenti told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview, saying the data referred to 2006."

The above statement is, of course, FALSE.  "For the first time in history..."?  Give me a break.

From that statement, you would think that the Catholic Church has been here forever.  Of course, the Christian religion did not even exist until after the DEATH of Christ.  It was a relatively minor sect--although growing--until recognized as the "official", or at least favored,  religion of the Roman Empire by the Emperor Constantine.

Even giving the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming that the Vatican spokesman was referring to modern times (as he surely was), I repeat:  So what!!!!!!!

I will tell you the only real significance here, and I am not sure it is a significance that even the Vatican understands (much less the "spin" others will put on it).  This does NOT mean that we have to "accommodate" the Muslim religion as the world's largest religion (all Christian sects actually still hold that position, when combined).  The United States guarantees freedom of religion.  That does NOT mean that we have to cater to religions because a lot of people are members.  We have certainly never taken that attitude with the CHRISTIAN religion.

What do I mean by "cater"?  I mean things like abandoning our principles of free speech because Muslims don't like cartoons of Muhammad.   I mean Muslim demands for things like "foot baths", or special public school cllasses, accommodations, or considerations.  

There is no reason for us, as a country, to declare the all Muslims as our enemies.  At the same time, there is equally no reason to allow ourselves to be intimidated in to caterin to islami EXTREMISM (not that foot baths, or the like, are that extreme, but the idea that extremist Muslims have a RIGHT to demand that their ideas of intolerance be "respected" by our country--as in the cartoon matter--IS that extreme).

Nope.  I am not scared of Muslims.  I have toyed with the idea of asking my older daughter--an amateur cartoonist with at least some talent--to draw some cartoons of Muhammad for this blog.  I respect the Muslim religion as much as I respect the Christian religion (remember, I am not a Christian, or religions at all, but do NOT believe+ in religious bigotry like that the media promoted against Mitt Romney).  But I do NOT relspect INTOLERANCE, or the right of religions to insist on "respect" for intolerance in the name of being "offended".

Okay.  This "news" means absolutely nothing for public policy--much less which religion is "best".  What does it mean?

To the extent it means anything, I think it means that at some point most "mainstream" Christian religions--including Catholicism--drifted away from the idea of CONVERTING people on the grounds that they represent the one true path.  They have sort of drifted--even the Catholic Church, although not necessarily in the conservative halls of the Vatican and Chruch leadership--into the ida that their is something arrogant and intolerant in the idea of telling people that other religions are WRONG, and that they should join whatever mainstream religion we are talking about.   Some Jewish groups, for example, seem to regard it as wrong for Christians to try to convert Jews.  I don't see it.  I have never seen it.  Sure, it IS "arrogant" to say that your religion is the one which excllusively sets forth the true Word of God.  But that is the whole nature of religion.

That is why I tend respect fundamentalist religious people somewhat more than I respect old line religions.  They seem to really BELIEVE in their religion, and that they are not free to ignore what God says, while there are a lot of "cafeteria" Catholics like Ted Kennedy out there (pick and choose what they want to believe in among the teachings of their church).  I am more cofortable personally--as I have said before--with people who I consider believe as I do:  that something is right because it is right, and not because God says so.   It is just that mainstream religions PRETEND to belive otherwise, since to believe my way is to admit that there is no reason for your church to exist (except as a sort of social club). 

Is that why fundamentalist churches, and even Islam, are gaining members, while the "old line" religions are losing them?  I lthink so.  These religions, including the Mormon Church actually out there trying to rECRUIT people, are willing to tell people that they have THE ANSWERS.   What else is a religion for.   If you are not willing to aggressively try to convert people, what does that say about whether you really believe in your religion?  When Christians were being fed to the lions in the Roman colliseum, would the religion have gotten anywhere if its member were not AGGRESSIVELY out there converting people?  Would the Christian religion have ever gotten ANYWHERE if early Christians had not AGGRESSIVELY tried to convert JEWS (although. admittedly, the mutliple gods of Rome were a more fertile target--especially since the emperors themselves tried to proclaim themselves the equivalent of a godl).   Christ was born a Jew.  The Christian religion became the dominant religion in the world by CONVERTING people.  You can't expect to stay in that position if you stop trying aggressively to convert people.

Is that where the Vatican is heading with this?  If they know what they are doing, it is.  It is the only way this "news" has any significance at all:  If it induced the Catholic religion to get aggressive again about converting people.  There was a straw in the wind in the past few weeks, where the Pope--rather publicly--BAPTISED a Muslim converting to the Catholic Church.

Would a renaissance of AGGRESSIVE Christianity--beyond the evangelicals-- be a good or a bad thing? I don't know.   I think it is a meaningless question (since I don't think religion has anything to do with logic--not that you can't have a logical mind and be religious, but that faith and logic just don't really relate to one another).  The point is that the religions which gain members are going to be those religions giving those members a reason to think that they belong to more than a social club. 

Politically, I line up pretty much with the Christian right, even though I am somewhat uncomfortable around deeply religions people.   Why is that?  I don't think there is any mystery.  I do not believe in religion (including the religious orghodoxy of liberalims/socialism/communism/global warming).  But I DO believe in OBJECTIVE TRUTH--that there issuch a thing as objective right and wrong.  I don't believe it is a mtter of subjective opinion.  Plus, I believe in individual responsibility for an individual's own actions, and I do NOT believe that a person is excused from responsibility because of lupbringing (or lack thereof), racism, lack of "understanding", etc. 

I think you can see why I end up with the same POLICY positions as a religious fundamentalist.  I don't believe in the "God" of Big Government, but I do believe that "truth" does not depend on one's internal, subjective view.  Further, I believe that the thousands of years of the Judeo--Christian tradition came up with some ideas of "truth" that should not be lightly discarded as passe'.   Conduct may not be right because God says so (as distinguished from God saying so because it is right), but that does not mean that the standards of conduct purportedly coming from God, and having stood the test of time, are not right as a matter of ojective truth.

Obama and Reverend Wright (blog prediction already coming true)

"Democrat Barack Obama seemed to suggest in an interview aired Friday that his former pastor has acknowledged that his controversial remarks were inappropriate and hurtful, although there are no public accounts of the minister having done so."

The above is the first sentence of the current AP/AOL story--posted on AOL long after my previous blog entry today discussed below.

See today's award of the coveted/dreaded "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" to Jeremiah Wright (see earlier entry today).  This week's award was, of course, for the incredible, WRITTEN, "galic noses" remarks--enthnic slurs against Italians.

I PREDICTED, before seeing anything about the aove, that Reverend Wrirght (who has been spirited into an Obama "witness/Obama protection program"), would resurface with WORDS--Obama type mere words--suppporting "racial harmony", as if such words could make up fro the racial hatred he has been spredking (with the implied endorsement of Obama--Obama's problem NOT being whether Obama really believes what Wright has sai, but that Obama implied endorsement of Wright's views by continuing to attend this church fully as much as a politician attending a church whose pastor is a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan would be deemed to be providing encouragement/endorsement for such hate).

This story is actually WORSE than what I predicted (although I expect what I predicted to happen).  OBAMA is providing the WORDS for Reverend Wright, when self-serving WORDS hardly excuse spreading/endorsing HATE for so many years.

Newspapers, R.I.P.

"The newspaper industry has experienced the worst drop in advertising revenue in more than 50 years."

The above is the lead sentence in a story from editorandpublisher.com now linked on Drudge.

Is there any present reason for newspaters to exist?  Nope.  You can't rely on them for "news".  The big ones, like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, St.Louis Post Dispatch, Seatte whatever, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc. now hardly even conceal that they have an AGENDA that inflences everythint they print--not just the editorial page.  Even the Wall Street Jornal long ago fell into this trap on everything BUT the editorial page.

The smaller papers rely on the truly despicable Associated Press for national and international "news", which means that you are getting AP propaganda from them, as well,  The desicable Associated Press, besides helping do in newspapers, is also a rot nibbling at the core of other "news" sources, including AOL, cable TV (yes--as I have shown repeatedly--Fox News is part of this problem), and even Drudge.  The saving grace for Drudge--even more than Fox News--is the VARIETY of sources used by Drudge, and linked on Drudge.   That makes drudgereport.com a MUCH superior source of "news" than AOL, and actually much superior to Fox News. 

Yes, the internet has pretty much doomed newspapers to go the way of the horse and buggy.  But newspapers have done NOTHING to try to justify their existence.  

Even as to local "news", the leftist cancer of "journalism" schools has pretty much eliminated newspapers as a reliable source of ANY kind of "news".  Newspapers have virtually committed suicide at the same time the internet, and the electronic revolution, have threatened to kill them off.

I used to religiously read newspapers--even more than one.  The experience used to be much more satisfying than the expeience of the hyper-hype of cable TV or the internet.  In a way, I miss that experience.  But I have not regularly read ANY newspaper in some two decades, and I don't miss theexperience of reading TODAY'S newspapers.  That is an experience I would not wish on my worst enemies.

I don't think many people are going to mourn the demise of today's newspapers.  I know I won't.

In fact, the whole ikea of professional "news"--of the type of the old Huntley-Brinkley report, is dying--or dead.  Agenda and hype are everything, everywhere.  There is NO real source of objective, factual news anymore.  I actually think Fox News is "balanced", and that Druge gives you enough variety so that an intelligent person can get an idea of what is really going on.  It is absurd, however, to suggest that either is even attempting to give people the FACTUAL NEWS.

Too bad.  My headline should have been "Journalism, R.I.P.".   That might be worth mourning.  Today's newspapers, or even other "news" sources, are not. 

Jeremiah Wright: Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate WINNER: Garlic Noses

Yes, it is time for this week's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate award (this blog's reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for conspicious stupidity/insult to intelligence in the previous week).

Sometimes, the judges wait until Saturday, but there was just no contest this week, despite other, deserving nominees.  That mainstream media was a contender again, as always, with--among other things--the conintued "global warming" PROPAGANDA, while ignoring the rather compelling evidence that global warming (from ALL causes) has STOPPED.   John McCain was a serious contender for his John Kerry speech--including completly buying into the "global warming" fraud.  There was Hillary Clinton suggesting she "misspoke" about something nobody misremembers, as she committed the increasingly common journalistic sin of making up a "good story" that never happened (in the way she told it).  There was again Barack Obama, who continued to spew out mere WORDS, while ignoring a truly pathetic record--a pathetic record made even more obvious this week by the revelation that violence in Chicago SCHOOLS is out of control.  Maybe if Obama had been a constructive force FOR values, and AGAINST hate,  in Chicago, instead of impliedly endorseing hate speech over the past 20 years, there would be less hate and violence in Chicago.

Deserving as the above examples of stupidity were, they simply could not compare with "garlic noses" (see this week's entry where Jeremiah's Wright use of that incredible term was quoted, IN CONTXT (one of the media/leftist "spin" nominations, competing with Wright, was the attempt to excuse Reverend Wright by suggesting that his truly evil words are not so bad "in context", or that you can't criticize Wright's hate speech unless you are African-American yourself--a position that quickly leads to the idea that Barack Obama is above criticism because of his skin color).

What "context" could save "garlic noses"?  In a EULOGY (written) yet?  The image alone is such a graphic, if nonsensical, ethnic slur that Reverend Jeremiah Wright had no real rivals for the award of "the Finger" this week.  No one seeing this phrase, in print, could ever either forget it or successfully excuse it.

Yet, the OTHER media/leftist tactic on Reverend Wright is to treat him as a VICTIM of hatred.  Yes, Reverend Wright is cancelling all of his scheduled public appearances lately.  The REAL reason for this is to try to take him out of the publica eye, so that he will not further embarrass Barack Obama.

The reason being put out for the cancellation of Everend Wright appearances is that Reverend Wright is in fear for himself and his family because of the threats and hate being directed against him.  In other words, Reverend Wright and his apologists/Obama strategists are now trying to portray Reverend Wright as the VICTIM of the very sort of hatred he has been TEACHING to a generation of black people.  For this ploy alone, Reverend Wright deserves this week's award.  Reverend Wright clearly prefers to label himself a coward (imagine Martin Luter King cancelling speeches for that reason), rather than face up to his own words.  Eventually, in a very controlled environment, you can expect Reverend Wright to surface with WORDS of reconciliation and "hope for racial conciliation--as distinguihsed from his EXAMPLE/TEACHING over many years.  In this sense, Barack Obama appears to be a worthy disciple of Reverend Wright, in Obama's evident belief that WORDS can substitute for a real record of advancing racial harmony.

"Garlic noses."  When Reverend Wright finally surfaces, or you hear the apologists for Reverend Wright, remember that phrase (which, in cntext, was clearly meant to be an ethnic slur against all ITALIANS, rather than even just a slur against the Roman Empire).  Nope.  Reverend Wright has been a teacher of HATE.  Barack Obama impliedly endoresed those teachings of hate by staying with Reverend Wright and his church for 20 years.  I still remember my first, appalled, reaction to Wright's statement that the U.S. white government had invented the HIV virus as a means of GENOCIDE against people of color in the world.  I remain astrounded that any peson would say such a thing.   In comparison, on a hate scale, "garlic noses" is sort of a farce--a parody of true hate speech.  That is why I think the phrase is so telling, and fully deserving of this week's (or any week's) Fllying, Fickle Finger of Fate award.

Therefore imagine here Dick Martin presenting "the Finger" (statuette of an INDEX finger) to Jeremiah Wright as this week's WINNER of the coveted/dreaded statuette:  "Reverend Wright, this award is for YOU; you DESERVE it."

Reverend Wright and Rome: Compare to the Sodom and Gomorrah Lesson

See yesterday's "garlic nose" entry.

Is there any doubt that Reverend Jeremiah Wright regards the present U.S.A. as a reincarnation of the most corrpt days of the Roman Empire, with the added common element of evil white people?  I don't think so.

Note that Reverend Wright has added virulent hate speech to a long time evangelical theme.  Yes, it is ironic, in a lot of ways.  Reverend Wright is drawing the same BIBLICAL lessons as Pat Robertson, and some of the fiery preachers of the Christian right (who leftists speak of with contempt, although they have never descended to the hate speech of Jeremiah Wright).

This is the old message of Sdom and Gomorrah--the message of the moral decay that supposedly brought down the Roman Empire.  If Jeremiah Wright had stopped there, or even added some racial sins to the evidence of moral decay, he would be well within a legitimate, if somewhat over the top, stain of religious preaching.  Unfortunately, Reverend Wright went well beyond the warning that God may punish us, like he punished Sodom and Gommorah.  Jeremiah Wright did not pass goal.  He went directly into the evil realm of hate speech.  You can't talk about the white U.S. government inventing the AIDS virus as a means of genocide, and providing drugs to black people so that they will end up in jail, and still claim that you are only talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.  You can't use a term like "garlic nose", and claim that you are only comparing moral decay in the Roman Empire to moral decay in the modern U.S.A.

It is NOT "hate speech" to suggest that God may be punishing us for moral decay (abortiion, homosexual conduct, loose heterosexual conduct, etc.).  It may be over the top, and not useful, but there is a BIG distinction between this Sodom and Gomorrah message and the hate speech of Reverend Wright. 

It is not all that subtle a distinction, but it may be too subtle for the thinking challenged people on the left.  If you say that 9/11 represented GOD'S PUNISHMENT on us for moral decay, you are NOT saying the TERRORISTS are justified.  You are merely saying that God may have allowed the terrorists to succeed to repeat the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah.   Reverend Wright went much further.  He, in essence, asserted that the U.S.A. is the main source of terrorism and evil in the world, and has been so as far back as World War II, and that the 9/11 terrorists were JUSTIFIED in what they did.   That is far more desicable than the Sodom and Gomorrah message.

Do I think that evangelical preachers are in any position to say that 9/11 represented a punishment/warning from God that we have sunk too far into moral decay?  No, I don't.   I think that is way too arrogant in reading the mind of God (assuming He exists), even if you claim to be able to communicate better with God than most.   However, it is a BIBLICAL lesson--a RELIGIOUS message which is not really anti-American, racist, or hate speech.  It is a fairly normal message of a fire and brimstone preacher talking in apocalyptic terms (not materially different from the apocalyptic message of Al Gore on "global warmng").

Reverend Wright went right past the Bible into the realm of hatred.

Yet, leftists are MUCH more willing to condemn evangelical preachers than they are to condemn Reverend Wright--much more willing, as well, to condemn politicians closely associated with evangelical preachers than to condemn Obama's 20 year implied endorsement of Jeremiah Wright.

You can think that some evangelical preachers are over the top, and even more than slightly nuts.  They are still not the equivalent of a pastor who is also a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.  Jeremiah Wright IS the moral equivalent of a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan (and those who think that the early Klan had NO rightful grievances do not know history, even if those grievances do not copare to the grievance of slavery).

Nope.  There is an essential distinction that HAS to be made here.  There is a huge difference between the hate speech of Jeremiah Wright and the Sodom and Gomorrah lesson.  The Sodom and Gomorrah lesson may be often wrongly applied, but it is still NOT on the same level of evil as Jeremiah Wright.  I use that term advisdedly.  Jeremiah Wright is NOT merely an over the top apocalyptic preacher.  He has been a promoter of EVIL.

That is what is wrong with Barack Obama's defenders.  They assert that no one really thinks that Obama believes in the most ridiculous/evil statements of Jeremiah Wright.  that is not the point.  As I have said before, the question is NOT whether Jeremiah Wright endorsed Barack Obama, or whether Barack Obama believes in everything that Jeremiah WRight said.  The question is whether Barack Obama ENDORESED JERMEIAH WRIGHT, and therefore was guilty of aiding and abetting evil.  It IS exactly the same as a white politician belonging to a church whose pastor is a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.  The white politician may not, and probably would not, believe in all of the things represented by the Klan.   But he still would be giving his ENDORSEMENT to what the Klan stands for by belonging to such a church.

This is what I find Barack Obama guilty of, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Obama and Chicago

See the recent enries in this blog (including comments under "garlic nose" entry) as to the lack of real ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Barark Obama--including lack of accomplishments, or previous record, in promoting racial harmony or "bringing people together"  Now there is this news out of Chicago:

"With 20 public school students killed -- 18 by gunfire -- since September, Chicago struggles with how to keep its students safe. The city's enacted stricter curfews and stepped up its police patrols. Soon, officers will have live access to thousands of security cameras inside and outside of schools."

Is it coincidence that the hate speech of Reverend Wright comes out of Chicago?  I wonder.

Then there is Barack Obama, who placed a stamp of approaval on the hate speech all of these years.  WHERE is the EVIDENCE that he has been a force for real "values" iin Chicago.

For that matter, where is the evidence that Obama has been a force for either racial or plitical harmony ANYWHERE?  Do speeches make up tor a total lack of acomplishment, and actons that contradict the speeches?  I don't think so.

Rush Limbaugh, Operation Chaos, and Me

Another entry in this blog yesterday was about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" (to get Republicans to sabotage the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary, in order to keep the Democratic race going to the bitter end), and the sudden, amazing embrace of many leftists of the Joe McCarthy type "loyalty oath".

One thing I should have noted is that I was FIRST with this suggestion.  Even though I go further, and actually support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States (over John McCain--a position I can't take with regard to Barack Obama), I noted in this blog (right after the Febraury 5 Super Tuesday, and some two weeks BEFORE Limbaugh) that the best strategy for Republicans was to vote for Hillary Clinton, who was on the verge of being forced out of the race.

I have noticed in this blog that Limbaugh--who is now taking vast credit for "operation chaos"--was LATE with this strategy, as he was LATE in his all out campaign against John McCain (the more serious BETRAYAL of conservatives, since I truly believe that more timely action by Limbaugh would have saved us from McCain--sese archives of this blog).

Note that Limbaugh has now followed the advice of this blog, albeit LATE, on TWO occasions--the first, on McCain, after I forwarded to him copies of entries in this blog accusing him of abandoning conservatives in their hour of need by refusing to take a firm position in the Repubican primaries.

Am I really the person behind both "operation chaos" and the shift by Limbaugh--unsuccessful as it was, because LATE--to an all out attack on McCain at about the time of the New Hampshire primary?  Or is it just coincidence that Limbaugh adopted my suggestions--albeit he was even LATE with regard to the strategy of Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Governor David Patterson and Dennis Miller: Blind Inspiration

I suggested a sliver lining in the seeming unending "confessions" of new Governor David Patterson of New York (along with the more serious prostition ring scandal of Governor Spitzer):  Maybe politiicans, and aspiring politicians, will get the idea that their best approach to non-marital sex is the same as the Doris Day/Debbie Reynolds movie personas of the 1950's (whether male or female). See yesterday's entry.

Dennis Miller has a different take (which attracts me because I have vision problems/macular dgeneration).  Patterson is, of course, legally blind.

Miller's take is that Patterson has PROVED that being blind does not have to restrict your activities--doing more to show the capabilities of the visually handicapped than anybody around.  As Miller says:  Patterson shows that you can have sex with multiple women, smoke pot, take a "blow" of cocaine--all--despite being visually handicapped--AND become Governor of New York. 

This, as Miller says, gives me a lot of encouragement and hope as a legally blind person.  True, it does not give me quite as much of a lift as it may give others.  But that is because of my OTHER handicap:  a pathological FEAR of women--making it difficult to be inspired by Patterson in that direction.   This problem is exacerbated by the fact that this fear of women is fully JUSTIFIED, and not even an unreasonable fear.

Still, I appreciate Dennis Miller pointing out what an inspiration Patterson is to all legally blind people.

Joe McCarthy (McCarthyism), Leftists and Rush Limabugh

Are leftists all about power, and not about principle at all?  Sure they are--especially if we are talking about principles of freedom, free speech, voting, freedom of thought, and the like.

This blog has repeatedly marvelled at thow willing Democrats have been to take the "right to vote" away from two whole states, without much of a peep from the mainstream media about depriving people of their "right to vote"--especially before it became an issue in the close Obama-Clinton race.

Then I have shown repeatedly in this blog, citing examples that leftists do NOT really believe in free speech (witness their attempt to SILENCE opponents of "global warming", as well as conservative talk radio and even Fox News--forcing a candidate boycott of Tox News sponsored debates).

This blog has further shown that leftists are the PRIMARY advocates in today's world of "guilt by association"--from Mark Foley to Larry Craig to the attempt to tar all Republicans with the most loony aspects of the "Christian right".  Nope.  Reverend Wright is NOT "guilt by association".   It is not Reverend Wright for whom Obama is being held repsonsible, but for Obama's own conduct in impliedly encouraging and endorsing racial, anti-American hate by being, and remaining, a member of Reverend Wright's church.  This is no different, as I have said, from a white politician belonging to a church whose pastor happens to be a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.  In fact, Obama's implied endorsement of REverend Wright (NOT Reverend Wright's endorsement of him) is MUCH stronger than any implied endorsement by any Republican of alleged "hate speech" of any Christian right fiugre.  PLUS, the speech itself is worse.  No mainstream Christian right leader could get away, for example, with saying that blacks are cospiring to gain power and take away white women (the closest I can come to the really abominable statement that the white dominated U.S. government INVENTED the AIDS virus to commit genocide on people of color).

Let us go now to "loyatly oaths".  Joe McCarthy, of coure, was accused of invalidely invoking "guilt by association" by demanding not only that non-Communist leftists not be closely associated with Communists, but that they IDENTIFY Communists that they knew.  Remember, it has been PROVEN (from KGB files) that the American Communist Party was an arm of the Soviet Union--basically an arm of the KGB.  So there was actually considerable excuse for the attitude of Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Actitivities committee.  Nevertheless, there was a certain paranoia, and willingness to pander to those who wanted to restrict freedom, that made Joe McCarthy somewhat unsavory--character traits that eventually took him down when he took on the U.S. Army.   Leftists now have WORSE paranoia, for LESS reason, than Joe McCarthy.  Further, leftists are MORE willing to trample on the freedoms of people than Joe McCarthy was ever able to do (whether he was "willing" or not).

Loyalty oaths were mainly an attempt by HOLLYWOOD to purge Communists, although they appeared in other contexts as well (as people were either asked to sign them as a condition of emplooyment, or before the Congressional committees).  Remember, these were oaths of loyalty to the UNITED STATES.  You might think that an employer--especially the government--should have the right to require an employee to swear loyatly to the United States of America, and even that the person is not a member of the Soviet Union.  Nevertheless, again, the loyalty oaths were somewhat insulting, and arguably a restriction of freedom.  A number of Hollywood people were "blacklisted" for failing to disassociate themselves "adequately" from the Communists.

Enter Rush Limbaugh and the "loyalty oath" in Ohio.  To vote in the Democratic primary in Ohio, you had to swear some kind of "loyalty" to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  It boggles the mind that Democrats would be up in arms if voters were required to swear loyalty to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but evidently see nothing wrong with requiring a "loyalty oath to the DEMORATIC PARTY.  Joe McCarthy lives again, on the left.

What this is, of course, is another illustraton of how leftist Democrats believe in POWER, and not at all in freedom.  There are any number of leftists, including some in the mainstream media, pushing the idea that Rush Limbaugh should be indicted for conspiring to commit, and encouraging, VOTER FRAUD in Ohio.  This is Limbaugh's famous "Operation Chaos", where he encouraged voters to vote for Hillary Clinton to keep the Democratic fight going (on the logic that Republicans were never going to adequately take on the Democrats, but that Democrats--with their allies in the media--would be willing to take on each other).  Limbaugh, of course, has turned out to be right.  More criticism of the Democratic candidates has been featured in the media than would EVER have been the case if a Deomocratic nominee were already assured, or will be the case in the general election.

What is the "fraud".  It is alleged lying as to this "loyalty oath" in Ohio.  This "problem" comes up, of course, because of another leftist "cause" really designed to increase their power:  the idea that voters can register on the day of voting.  This whle idea that it is wrong to require, say, registraton six months in advance leads to this kind of unintended consequence.

Is it Constitutional to inquire as to the MOTIVATIONS of voters?  Surely not.  This whole idea of a "loyalty oath" is absurd.   Joe McCarthy never went that far.   Of course, it has proven a godsend for Limbaugh.  Aftter failing to stop McCain (when I think he could have), which is the real defest conservatives have suffered in this election, Limbaugh has moved back to the top as a conservative radio figure with "operaton chaos".  The Joe McCarthy's of the left, and the media, are helping him immensely.

Does it bother leftists that they are actually talking about putting people IN JAIL for a "false" "loyalty oath"?  Does it bother leftists that they are using the very language of Joe McCarthy and his time to regenerate one of the concepts of that time? 

Not so you would notice (although, to be fair, some leftists are uncomfortable with it, although many are not).  As I said, leftists are about POWER, and NOT about freedom.

Leftists were fine with John McCain getting "independent" and Democratic votes--both this year and in 2000.  But let Limbaugh get their goat, and they are willing to try to use the CRIMINAL LAW to harass voters--not to mention Limbaugh exercising his right of free speech.

They should be ashamed, except they have no shame.  For them, it is all about POWER.

Patriotism and Leftists

I don't use the word "patriotism", or talk about "lack of patriotism".  That is because the word has no real, objective meaning.  It is the same as "prudish" or "Victorian".  When I was 18 (yes, I was never really young), I had a letter published in a science fiction magazine talking about how meanigless the terms "Victorian" and "prude" are.   A person who uses words like that is only saying:  "In my opinion, you have an overly restrictive view of sex."  They are words with only a SUBJECTIVE meaning.  Similarly, saying "I am more patriotic than you" is merely a matter of subjective opinion, and does not advance an argument.

What is ironic is how Democrats of a leftist kind have cynically tried to turn this around.  Since there is no objective meaning of "patriotism", they regularly suggest that that attacks on their attitude toward this country are slurs on their "patriotism", even though the word "patriotism" is never used.  In other words, they set up a straw man to knock donw--counting on the correct view that "partriotism" has no objective meaning.  This, of course, begs the question of whether leftists are being ACCURATELY accused of haveing the Reverend Wrioght world view that America is the main source of evil in the world.

I am talking directly about "patriotism" in this entry because I again made the mistake of turning on the radio last night as I was preparing for bed (after I vowed--for good reason--not to do that anymore.  Well, I got rightly punished for breaking a vow.  Alan Colmes was on the radio spinning "patriotism" in the reverse twist, leftist way described abouve.  However, what prompts this entry is that he attempted a DEFINTIION of "patriotism".  It went something like this (I promise you that I am accurately catching the essence, although this is not a direct quote):

"Defined correctly, patriotism is standing up for what you believe to be best for the people of this cuntry, even if it conflicts with "conventional wisdom."

Yes, defined this way, "patriotism" does not even have a subjective meaning.  It has no meaning at all.  How can ANYONE possibly be "unpatriotic", under this definition, even if you are an American member of al-Qaida?  It is like the leftist perversion of "family values".  If ALL "familly groups", inclulding communes, have a right to their own "family values", then the term has no meaning (the leftist objective in redefining the term in the first place).

Was Benedict Arnold a patriot?  Under the definition of Alan Colmes, he might well have been.  He might well have thought that the American people would be better off under British rule.  Now the motives of Benedict Arnold were pretty complex.  You might say that Colmes' definition still leaves a sliver of meaning left in that people who sell out their country for SELF INTEREST might still be regarded as "unpatriotic". 

Note that most of the most dangerous enemies of this country do NOT sell out for "30 pieces of silver" (to quote James Carvelle on Bill Richardson).   American members of al-Qaida are not usually doing it for money.  The Rosenberg's (especially the husband) were willing to risk the destruction of the human race by stealing the "secret" of the atomic bomb for the Soviet Union (and that madman, Joseph Stalin).  Alger Hiss has been proven, by KGB files, to be an agent of the Soviet Union.  These were LEFTISTS,  in the post World War II ear, who BELIEVED in Communism.  There were many others.  There were even more who supported Rosenberg and Alger Hiss.  Were these people "patriots".  From the Alan Colmes pint of view they certainly were.  From an objective point of view, they were committing TREASON (a word with objective meaning) against this country, or were duped into supporting people who had committed treason. 

If you call the people killing American soldiers in Iraq "freedom fighters" fighting an illegal occupation, are you "patriotic"?  Who cares.  You are coming down on the side of the enemy (on the side of TERRORISTS, by the way, which makes you stupid in the extent you will go to oppose our intervention in Iraq).

Similarly, look at Jane Fonda.  She went to North Vietnam and PRAISED those killing American soldiers.  She put herself sqarely on the side of the enemy, and against the soldiers of her own country.  According to Alan Colmes' definition, that was "patriotic"--which merely means that Colmes has stolen all conceivable meaning from the word.  

I have come around to the view that we should never have committed substantial numbers of troops to try to save an overly corrupt government in South Vietnam (contrary to Iraq, where the invasion was to REMOVE a minor league Adolf Hitler).  Nevertheless, I never made the mistake, and do not now, of considering the North Vietnamese as the GOOD GUYS.  They were not.  Nor were we the "bad guys".  In fact, our purpose in South Vietnam was a noble one.   It was just a mistake as to what was practical. 

Was the Symbionese Liberation ARmy composed of "patriots"?  These are the people who kindanpped Patty Hearst and KILLED people (recently in the news because that housewife former SLA member was mistakenly realeased from prison too early)..  By the definition of Alan Colmes, they were certainly patriots.  In their own view, they were trying to "save" this country.   What about the Weather Underground (which engaged in bombings against military related targets--an Obama friend, William Ayers, having been an admitted bomber with the Weather Underground against the Vietnwm war, although he never went to jail for it).   Again, according to Alan Colmes (and many other leftists at the time), this type of violence was "patriotism". 

If you want to debase the word "patriotism" to the extent that leftists do, even considering the subjective meaning of the term in the first place, then you have merely made the word totally useless.  It does not change things:  Going to North Vietnam to oppose our own soldiers, and support the enemy, is WRONG (whether you consider it "patriotic" or not).  Tryin to EVICE our own military from your city (Berekeley, Californisa did this one recently) is WRONG, whether or not you consider it "patriotic".  Weather Underground bombing was WRONG.  And so on.

You won't see me backing down from leftists on this simply because they accuse me of "attacking their patriotism".  I attack their CONDUCT, and their ATTITUDE toward this country.  Put whatever label on it you like.

Italians: Garlic Noses?

No one could make this stuff up.  This is what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, IN PRINT, in the November/December issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine (in a eulogy, no less):

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

Garlic noses?  Hillary Clinton is right.  NO white politician could get away with having a mentor and pastor like this for 20 years.  Nor is it believable that Barack Obama was not aware of the kind of hate that is in Jeremiah Wright.  Whether Obama was at every sermon, or heard Wright say directly ALL of these despicable things, it is impossible to believe that Obama was not substantially aware of the truly outrageous type of things that Wright has been saying--even more unbelievable than that Hillary Clinton really remembered being under "sniper fire". 

Remember the criticism of Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" for allegedly blaming the Crucifixion on the Jews?  Well, Reverend Wright is not far away from that.  Remember Pontius Pilate and the mob who chose who would die?   Wright is perfectly willing to SMEAR all Italians, even to the point of using and ethnic slur.  Were ITALIANS (as an ethnic group) responsible for the treatment of Christ?  Only if you believe in "group guilt".  Reverend Wright obviously does.

This was Barack Obama's MENTOR, and Obama stayed in this church for 20 years.  He exposed his daughters to this hate speech.  He had no problem with other African-Americans being TAUGHT this kind of hate.  Obama, by his own admission, did NOTHING about it.  He stayed with the church. 

Barack Obama has not shown, outside of camapaign speeches, any devotion to racial harmony--much less opposition to racial hate.  His actions have shown the opposite.  Speeches--especially campaign speeches--do not make up for a lifetime of being part of the problem.  If Obama had made a speech while in the Illinois legislature noting that this kind of hatred was destructive to black people, and distanced himself from Reverend Wright, I would give him some credit. 

For Obama to give mere speeches on racial harmony NOW, to try to get elected President, impresses me not at all.

Governor Patterson of New York

"He graduated from Hempstead High in 1971. Back in the day, he says, he smoked marijuana occasionally and, at 22 or 23, tried cocaine "a couple of times." At that point in his life, he'd have been a senior history major at Columbia - or perhaps a recent graduate. It would be a couple of years before he decided he wanted to go to law school."

Democratic "accidental governor" David pattterson of New York seems determined to use the people of New York as the equivalent of Catholic priests receiving confession (and presumably giving absolution--he hopes).

Patterson, of course, has also "confessed" to MULTIPLE affairs, as well as an "inadvertent" use of campaign funds for a tryst with at least one mistress.

Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton answered "none of your business", when asked about her reaction to the Monica Lewisky matter and how it may reflect on her mother.

I prefer Chelsea Clinton.  As I have said before, I truly wish that Governor Patterson had not found it necessary to publicly confess to all of his sins. 

Yes, today's "journalists" continue to act like the public has a "right to know" these things.  HOGWASH. 

What we need are politicians who are not wimps--who are willing to stand up to ersatz "jornalists" (whose private life could almost universally not stand scrutiny) demanding to have these questions about a person's entrie life be "answered" (you are naive if you think you are likely to really get a complete answer, as distinguished from the "I did not inhale", Bill Clinton type answer).

Did we really even need to know that Barack Obama was more into drugs than Governor Patterson admits to when Obama was a young man?  He says so in at least one of his books.  What I find disturbing is that many people have treated Obama as a HERO for this.  More "hreoic" than someone who has not done recreational drugs at all?  Am I alone in not seeing a whole lot of "remorese" or "contrition" here?

I actually prefer President Bush's approach:  "I had a wild youth, and did things I am not proud of".  We don't NEED to know the details of everyone's personal sins--especially REMOTE personal sins.

Governor Spitzer was a problem because he patronized a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE while actually serving as Governor--a business he was obligated to turn in and prosecute.  you just can't do that. 

But this developing idea that politicians should "confess" to ALL of their personal sins, at the least excuse.

Nope.  Chelsea Clinton is right.  "None of your business" is the appropriate response to most of this stuff.  If you are a governor, and think you can be simultaneously a client of an "escort service", I can't help you.  Among other things, you are too stupid to be dogcatcher.   Otherwise, I think "none of your business" is the right response.

As I have also said, there is a silver lining to this media onslaught on personal privacy.  Maybe politicians, and would be politicians, will get the message:  NON-MARITAL SEX IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR POLITICAL HEALTH.  I have already shown in this blog that "sex, of the non-marital promiscuous kind, is hazardous to your physical and mental health."  It would be ironic if this priggish attitude toward politicians, and wimpish failure of politicians to stand up to "journalists", led to an IMPROVEMENT in publich health because people correctly not only get the message that sex is dangerous on many levels, but see politicans set an example for them. 

It is not, of course, just politicians.  If you ever WANT to be a politican, or any other kind of prominet person, can you afford to have sex with ANYONE to whom you are not lawfully married?  I think it is doubtful.  We are now constantly getting nude photos appearing.    The new wife of the President of France evidently is the subject of such photos, which are now for sale.  "Tell all" stuff is going to get more and more common. 

Nope.  If you know what is good for you, you will stick to 1950's type morality.  You will be healthier, and these things will not come back to haunt you.

"Global Warming": The Origin

Let us go back to fundamentals here.  HOW did the vague concept of "global warming" get started (this story of an ice chunk breaking off of Antarcitica is meaningless "global warming propaganda)?

Well, after a COOLING period ending in 1970 (approximately 1940 to 1970), the Earth enereed a warming period (which seems to have basically ENDED 5 to 10 years ago--see the multiple entries in this blog, over the past week).  Radical environmentalists looked for a way to USE this warming to advance their political agenda.

Do we WARM the Earth when we heat our houses (just from the production of heat--not counting "greenhouse gases").  Of course we do.  In fact, one of the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS is that the production of energy ALWAYS produces HEAT.  Our own bodies produce HEAT (besides exhaling CO2--a greenhouse gas).  But the entire energy produced by man--although it does produce HEAT--is negligible when compared with the energy transmitted to the Earth by the SUN. Therefore, it was OBVIOUS that environmentalists could not get away with that argument--the argument that direct heat produced by man is "causing" warming of the Earth.

What to do; what to do!!!  Well, they found an answer.  Heating your house DOES "warm the Earth", but is obviously too minor a factor.  But we don't know much about atmospheric science.  There is such a thing as the "greenhouse effect", and greenhouse gases surely have a "warming" effect on the Earth (as does heating your house, or any other production of energy).  There is no reason to believe that this effect is any more major, in comparison with the SUN, than the other minor heating effects of the activities of man.  But we don't know enough to DISPROIVE IT.  This explains totally where the vague concept of "global warming" came from:  an attempt to USE an obvervable thing (warming, over a limited period) to advance a political agenda USING a "theory" that can't really be disproven (in the short run)--even though this vague concept is unlikely (logically) to be much more of a factor, in comparison with the SUN, than man's direct production of heat.

Note the beauty of the "greenhouse gas" concept for environmentalists/leftist anti-capitalists.   It USES the SUN, instead of being able to be directly discredited by comparison with the sun.   Now the greenhouse gases we are putting in to the atmosphere have a very SMALL effect of the composition of the atmosphere.   But the beauty of the "global warming" hypothesis is that the "greenhouse effect" turns the sun's own reflected rays into heat.   As stated, we don't know enough about atmospheric science to specifically evaluate the magnitude of this effect--although logic would suggest the effect is small (just like the "direct heat" produced by the activities of man is small).

It does not matter.  All environmentalists wanted was a "theory" to HYPE to advance their political agenda--a theory that could not easily be disproven.  They found one.

Can the "theory" survive data showing that that the Earth is no longer warming (from whatever causes).  Of course not--SCIENTIFICALLY.  But look what "global warming" fanatics have accomplished.  They have, in the media and even in the minds of people, separated the "theory" from the actual "science".   Now every event, such as a big iceberg or "unusual weather", becomes confirmation of "global warming"--even though scientifically meaningless.

It is all a giat scam--a giant con game made possible by the willing suspension of disbelie/skepticism by the mainstream media (plus the corresponding pressure on scientists to conform to the new "conventional wisdom", while scientists who do not conform are relegated to totla obscurity).

Note:  The above is a reformulation of an earlier entry in the past week.   See the multiple entries over the past week to get a full picture of what is going on with "global warming", as well as the perhaps hundreds of entries over the life of this blog.  I thought the above analysis of the origin of "global warming" (the fantaic religion/political movement, and not the actual warming of the Earth) was valuable enough to repeat (in slightly altered form).

Global Warming Propaganda

See the entries over the past week in this blog showing the strong evidence that global warming has STOPPED. 

Consider that such evidence has received very little news coverage.  Then consider that a MAJOR story today, with pictures, is that a big ice chunk has broken off of a glacier in Antartica--meantingless as to what is happening to the "temperature of the Earth", but great "global warming" propaganda (with dramatic pictures).  You know the drill ("size of Manhattan", and all of the hyped stuff about the kind of thing that used to receive no "news" coverage at all).

This is mere "global warming" propaganda (making such a big deal out of something that happens naturally--as structures shift, currents shift, local climate varries, and ice just gets too heavy for its support).

Why the PROPAGANDA over such minor stuff.  See the MULTIPLE entries in this blog over the past week--entries which show that global warming has STOPPED.  There has never been much evidence for MAN MADE global warming.  What I mean here is that the warming of the Earth (from whatever cause) seems to have STOPPED.  That is the reason this PROPAGANDA fluff is promoted so heavily.  There is nothing else that "gloabl warming" propagandists can point to.  The tide of real EVIDENCE has turned against them.

Accarding to NASA scientists, 3.00 robots in the oceans show NO increase in ocean temperatures over the past 4 to 5 years (oceans being crucial to world temprature, and covering most of the Earth's surface).  1998 reamins the year of the WARMEST "temperature of the Earth".   Since 2003, world termperatures have been stable (correlating with NASA ocean data).  For the U.S., of course, 1936 REMAINS the waromest year, and there never has been any CONSISTENT trend of warming.

The EVIDENCE is that world "global warming" has STOPPED.

Global Warming R.I.P.

"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them."

The above is the first paragraph of a March 19 National Public Radio story (see link on Drudge--search Drudge for "global warming").

See the entries over the past few days on "global warming".  The evidence is simply becoming overwhelming that the world is no longer warming.

Note the incredible propaganda BIAS that still exists in the mainstream media, and the pressure being applied upon scientists to avoid proclaiming the death of "global warming".  Thus, the paragraph above casts doubt on the instrument readings and/or our interpretaion of them (doubt which is NEVER cast by the media on data supposedly supporting "global warming", even when scientists themselves cast doubt on the data--a recent study suggesting that fully halv of the supposed warming over the last cetury was the result of changes in measurement rather than real "warming").

The story goes on to try to cast doubt on the figures by suggesting that the years since 203 have been "among the warmest" on record (not, of course, 2007, for the U.S., or 2008 so far). 

"Amond the warmest" on record DOES NOT CUT IT.  If "global warming" "theory" is correct, we have to CONSTANTLY SET NEW RECORDS.  That is the point of the data referenced in this blog's previous recent entries.  The world may still be generally warmer than it was in the 19th Century (remains a GOOD THING), but the upward spurt in world temperature (which began somewhere around 1970, after a COOLING period from 1940-1970) has STOPPED.  This is directly contrary to the hypothesis of Al Gore, and "global warming" thery, that the warming was going to ACCELERATE.  There is obviously no "crisis", or need to destroy our economy to avert a "crisis", if the warming has STABILIZED.  

As stated in previous entries, there are some indications that the Earth is even beginning to cool.  Howver, even if temperatures have just stabalized at a realtively wrm level, what is wrong with that?  It is hardly an emergency.  Present temperatures are NOT unacceptably warm.  They are not a severe problem, unless "global warming" models are correct that suggest a continuing acceleration of the warming.  Since those models have been PROVEN incorrect over the past decade or so, what is the problem?

As stated in previous entries, the prolem is that "global warming" is ACCEPTED AS REVEALED TRUTH by the "establshment" (mainstream media included) at the very same time the data is proving that the "global warming" model (as was always obvious) is NOT adequate to explain "climate change" (or, in this case, lack of change).

Hillary Clinton and Bosnia

Did you hear about Hillary Clinton making up resume enhancement as to her epxeriences as First Lady under fire?  Yes, she stated--twice, I think--that she went to Bosnia at a time when it was so dangerous that she had to "duck SNIPER FIRE, and run for cover, getting off the helicopter" (quote not exact, but giving you the exact flavor of what happened).  I like Sinbad's reaction, which was that nothing happened:  "What kind of President would send his wife into a dangerous situation, rather than go himself?"  The problem there, of course, is that we know Bill Clinton WOULD.

I have finally figured out HIlary Clinton's problem.  She thinks she can do what Bill did:  say anything and get away with it because of personal charm.  She just does not seem to realize that few think she has any personal charm.   It even seems to be wearing thin for Bill.

And say you are the despicable Associated Press.  You have been ignoring this story (as Hillary Clinton expected you to), even though Sinbad has evidently been talking about it for some two weeks.  But Hillary Clinton has put out a statement admitting that she "misspoke".  Well, you know what you do if your are the despicable AP.  You do the same thing you did with Obama and Reverend Wright.   You highlight the "EXPLANATION"/response of the Clinton campaign, and NOT the original lie.  Therefore, the Associated Press headline is:   "Clinton 'misspoke' on Bosnia trip". 

I just love the headline by the despicable Associted Press (not to mention the Clinton "explanation, which boils down to this plaintive complaint:  "Bill got away with making things up; why can't I").

How do you "misspeak" about being under SNIPER FIRE (when it is news to everyone else on the trip, including SINBAD).  This is the kind of thing you say when you are so used to favorable press coverage that you don't think you will be called on it (like Bill describing all of those church fires in Arkansas that never happened).

Barack Obama should sympathize.  Rememer when he was "tired", and said that 10,000 peope--or was it 1,000? (I am "tired", you understand)--died in that tornado that hit that Kansas town, while the Natinal Guard was supposedly busy in Iraq (the whole point of the "exaggeration", when "only" about 10 died, with perfectly adequate emergency response).  Hey, Obama was only making oneof those rhetorical points, and engaging in the oratory for which he is famous.  What matter that he was off by an order of magnitude (100 times).

U.S.A. Cooling and Reference Years

See the entry today entitled "Global Warming Ended?.  In the interview quoted, you will find a mention of "reference year".   This is one of the many frauds of "global warming".

I can "prove" that temperatures in the U.S.  have been COOLING simply by picking the right STARTING point (even picking the right starting decade will pretty much eliminate any warming--beyond the issues as to changing temperature measurements explaining a good portion of the claimed "warming"). 

I choose the starting, reference year of 1936 (the single WARMEST year since U.S. temperature record keeping began).  Although 2006 was a vitrual tie, and several years in the last decade have been amoung the ten "warmest" in the last century, it is clear that the U.S.A. has COOLED since 1936.   2007 was a MUCH COOLER year, and 2008 is starting off to be similar to 2007 in the U.S. 

I have mentioned before the chart of U.S. temperatures, by year, in Michael Crichton's book, "Sate of Fear".  The point here is NOT that temperatures have "cooled" in the U.S. since 1936.   What has really happened, as Crichton asserts, is that there is NO CONSISTENT TREND in U.S. temperatures since the 19th Century (the 19th Century being TOO COLD to start with--some warming from the average of that century being a good thing).  Temperatures have gone up and down.  Yet, this is NOT true of greenhouse gas emissions, whcih have gone consistently up. 

This means that your starting reference (totally arbitrary) becomes CRUCIAL.  If you pick a WARM year, or warm decade, as your starting point, then there is no real warming.  If you pick a COOL year as your starting point, suddenly there appears to be warming.  In reality, in the U.S. what we have is a series of up and down temperratures, with no consistent trend (warming or cooling).   See again Crichton's chart.

This is NOT the kind of data that can support a relationship between greenhouse gases and temperatures in the U.S.  HHOW can there be such a relationship, when 1936 is the WARMEST U.S. year, and not even an aberrational year.   That essentially proves that greenhouse gases are NOT the primary factor in U.S. temperatures over the past century.  You simply can't, from a scientific point of view, pick a COLD starting point, and then act like there has been a consistent warming from that starting point.  You can't do that when there has been an erratic, up and down pattern of temperatures, over more than a century, in the U.S.  In other words, as Michael Crichton says, U.S. temperatures provide NO support for "global warming" (the concept that man-made factors are causing a CONSISTENT rise in temperature corresponding to the rise in greenhouse gas levels).

As that previous entry pointed out, the very same thing is now occurring with WORLD temperatures.  By the original "global warming" method of calculating the mythical "temperature of the Earth", 1998 is the WARMEST year.   That means that if you start in 1998 (now a full decade ago), the Earth has COOLED.  Even if you look at the entire patter, the warming "trend line" for the world, starting in about 1970, has STOPPED. We have reached a plateau, with a very recent indication of cooling, over the years since 1998.  Yet, this is the very time when "global warming" was supposed to be ACCELERATING.

Wen you consider (sse Michael Crichton's book again) that the WORLD went through a COOLING period from 1940 to 1970, before seeming to enter a period of seemingly consistent warming, the relationship of greenhouse gases and the "temperature of the Earth" is falling apart.  You can't explain these temperature variations (1940 to 1970, and the recent leveling off of the world temperature) with "global warming" theory.  All you are left with is the religious "faith" that greenhouse gases will start the Earth to warming again, evn though there are obviously other factors involved in the temperature data.

"Global warming" "theory" envisions a diagonal upward line of steadilwarming temperatures (see Crichton's book as to how that line seemed to exist for a few decades after 1970), or even a hyperbolic curve where the warming ACCELERATES.  Instead, we have a DECELERATION of "global warming", altong with a discontinuity from 1940 to 1970 (unexplained in "global warming" "theory").  Further, we have no consistent warming trend AT ALL in the U.S.A. 

Despite all of this, "global warming" fanatics want to treat their "theory" (not really a full fledged "theory", as I have said, but a vague hypothesis/concept) as FACT.

Do these people (environmentalists, leftists, the mainstream media, and others who have bought into the fraud of "global warming"), have any credibility?  I think not. 

What "global warming" advocates have consistently shown is a willingness to "cherry pick" data to say what they want it to say (what President Bush is accused of doing in Iraq, with less justification for that accusation than for the accusation that "global warming" advocates are doing exactly that with regard to temperature and climate data).

The end justifies the means, for "global warming" advocates, and therefore you cannot believe a single word they say.   They have made clear that they fully indend to ignore data that does ot fit into their agenda/world view.

Global Warming Fraud

Let us go back to the early 1970's.  Yes, I was there (first as a soldier in the U.S. Army, and then a law student at the Unitversity of Texas at Austin).

Remember Michael Cricton's book, "State of Fear"?  The charts in that book showed that there was (stiall unexplained, ESPECIALLY in the "theory" of "global warming") world GLOBAL COOLING from 1940 to 1970 (give or take a year or two). 

What did environmentalists and leftists do?  They tried to USE this politically.  There were attempts to suggest that man's activities (pollution again) were causing GLOBAL COOLING.  The problem was that there was no plausible scientific rationale for that.  "Plausible" is ALL these people care about, because the agenda is POLITICAL and NOT "scientific".   So their arguments tended to drift off into the sterile subject of "nuclear winter"--sterile because the LEAST problem of a nuclear war would be "nuclear winter".  That merely exposed the whole thing as a leftist political ploy, and "global cooling" never not anywhere as an environmental issue.

However, there were already rumblings that our industrial civilization was putting greenhouse gases into the air.  There was no way to make this a POLITICAL issue, because the Earth was clearly not yet warming (other than the overall warming from the last Ice Age).   But see the archives of this blog about the guy in Alaska who criticized the "convential wisdom", circa 1970, that the Earth was going to continue COOLING on the graounds that we were pumping those greenhouse gases into the air.  The SAME GUY now is a critic of the hysterical present "conventional environmental wisdom" of "global warming"--not because he has changed his mind but because environmentalists have totally exaggerated the effect (as he asserted the danger of "global cooling" was being overhyped in the early 1970's).

Now let us go to energy.  One of the Laws of Thermodynamics is that the production of energy produces HEAT--inevitably.   Light bulbs produce HEAT.  Does that "warm" the Earth?  Of course it does--DIRECTLY, without having to look at the pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.   We HEAT our homes in the winter.  Does that directly HEAT up the Earth?  Of course it does (again without even considering greenhouse gases).  As we exhale CO2 (greenhouse gas), our own BODIES produce HEAT (as does every other living thing on this planet) as our bodies produce energy.  EVERYTHING man does on this Earth produces HEAT (again, a Law of Thermodynamics--physics was my undergraduate major at New Mexico State University--1965-1969).  Even air conditioning (takes energy, remember) produces HEAT (net).

Why did environmentalists not make a big thing out of this (for example, we even TESTED hydrogen bombs in the 1950's IN AIR--lots of HEAT)?  It is simple to explain.  Our inevitable producton of heat (just from living on this Earth, and in EVERYTHING we do) does "warm" the Earth.  That is a fact of physics.   However, it is obvious to even the most "politically correct" scientist that the effect is MINOR.  If you compare the energy put out by the SUN, and the energy prodcued by man, and other living things, on Earth, the HEAT we produce is just not material.  Yet, as with greenhouse gases, there is absolultely no question that energy production has a direct WARMING effect on the Earth.  It is just obvious to everyone that the effect is not significant.

But the Earth (on average--this idea of one "temperature of the Earth is another "global warming" fraud) began to WARM in approximately 1970.  This soon became pretty obvious. 

The qustion for environmentalists and leftists became:  How do we USE the fact that the Earth was warming they way we had TRIED to use the fact that the Earth had previously seemed to be COOLING  (despite the increase in greenhouse gases from 1940-1970).

Enter greenhouse gases.  There is no doubt, in physics, that greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the Earth (as do light bulbs and HEATING your home during the winter).   However, there was no real reason to believe that this effect was any more significant than the direct HEAT put out by the acitvities of man.  In other words, there was no real reason to believe that greenhouse gases have any significant effect on the "temperature and climate of the Earth AT ALL.

However, we had NO extensive theory of "climate" (still don't).  And the gross amount of "greenhouses gases" that man's acitivities are pumping into the atmosphere is large (although minute in comparision with the total atmosphere).  Unlike heat produced by direct energy, which is OBVIOUSLY immaterial in comparison with the sun as to the total heat impacting on the atmosphere of the Earth, we don't presently know enough about atmospheric science and the climate of the Earth to KNOW how insignificant man's production of greenhouse gases probably is.

The environmentalists/leftists finally had it:  a means of USING the warming of the Earth to advance their POLITICAL AGENDA.  What did they have to lose?  Global COOLING had gotten them nowere.  But it is well known that trends tend to continue for awhile.  It was likely that the Earth was going to continue to warm (once that trend was apparent) for awhile.  What environmentalists/lefitists WANTED (politically) had NOT changed from the day's of "global cooling".  But "global warming" was a much more PLAUSIBLE avenue for advancing the policial agenda of the radical, anti-capitalist, anti-American environmetalists/leftists.  We did not know enough to disprove it (albeit we never have come close to knowing enough to prove that man-made activities have any SIGNIFICANT effect on the average temperature of the Earth--much less what effect they have on CLIMATE). 

There you have it.  The origin of the Book of Genesis of the religion of "global warming".

But, you say, what happens if the Earth STOPS warming?  If you ask that questiion, you are totally missing the point.  See the previous entry.  The Earth HAS stopped warming-even by the standards previously embraced by "global warming" "theorists".   Even the statellite measurements which provided an apparent godsend to the "gobal warming" agenda no longer show a "warmng" of the Earth.

However, this was ALWAYS all about a POLITICAL AGENDA.  The point has never been the "science".  Therefore, what did "global warming" fanatics DO when the Earth STOPPED warming?  They IGNORED IT.  It is simply dismissed as a momentary pause in the "global warming" "trend"--even though that warming trend lasted no longer than the previous COOLING trend.

Further, the "global warming" fanatics, realizing that the Earth's actual warming might be slowing, or ending, began pushing a total FRAUD--the fraud of "climate change".  They, of course, could NEVER be caught out on that one. The climate is ALWAYS changing.   Therefore, new data could never contradict the idea of "climat change."

But.  The whole concept of "global warming" was generated by the WARMING of the Earth.  If that warming STOPS, the whole concept of greenouse gas "global warming" COLLAPSES.  There is no longer ANY evidence for it.  There is NO other mechanism for "climate change" being caused by greenhouse gases.  So the whole idea of "climate change" totally divorces the "global warming" movement from the science.

It  does not matter.  For environmentalists, it has NEVER been about the science. This is why you get the argument that we should be doing these things (radical environmental agenda) ANYWAY, and therefore it is not important whether you "believe" in "global warming".  That was the entire purpose of "global warming" "theory in the first place:  to advance the already existing POLITICAL AGENDA of the radical environmentalists.

Problem:  The FRAUD has distorted the debate.  WE should be debating radical environmental matters ON THEIR MERITS (or lack of same, in many cases).  Instead, radical environmentalists/leftists have accomplished what they want:  to short circuit debate on the basis that we MUST do the things in their political agenda (ironically distorted by having to fit the agenda into the "global warming" framework of "greenhouse gases") to avoid the apocalypic disasters predicted by the HYPE/PROPAGANDA of "global warming" (rather than supported by the "science").

There you have it--a summary of the "global warmnig" FRAUD.  It has become abundantly obvious that we have no more reason to believe that greenhouse gases have a SIGNIFICANT effect on the "temperature of the Earth" than we have for believing that heating your house in the winter time (and other direct heat produced by energy) has a SIGNIFICANT effect on the "temperature of the Earth".   There is no question that BOTH do have a warming effect.  However, there is NO real evidence that the effect is more than minor in either case.  The SUN completely dwarfs both things.

Yes, leftists ARE counting on the mainstream media to shut up the critics of the fraud of "global warmng".  So far they have been mainly successful.  But see the previous entry.  There are cracks in the facade.

What does this fraud tell you about the credibility of radical environmentalists, lefttists, and the mainstream media.  You should be able to answer that one.  They have NO credibility.

Global Warming: Ended?

See the comment under the "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award entry on Saturday.  The comment mentions an Asutralian article linked on Drudge.  This is an excerpt from the article the comment may be referring to (excerpt from "theaustraliannews.com, and you can find link by searching "global warming" on Drudge):

on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

This, of course, is merely another case of people catching up with this blog.  I have been telling you exactly the same thing for some time.  The very same type of figures that were relied up for the vague concept of "global warming" (NOT a full fledged "theory" of climate, which makes the attempt to change the term to "climate change" a complete fraud) now show that global warming has STOPPED (indicating it had nothing to do with greenhouse gases in the first place).  In fact, recent entries in this blog have pointed out that temperature tracking data for the last year, ending in February or so, has shown GLOBAL COOLING as to that mythiical "temperature of the earth" relied up for that vague concept of "global warming".

This is a reason I made Fox News Talk a co-winner of last week's Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate for its PROPAGANDA "tips" on what YOU can do about "global warming".  This idea that the debate is "over", just as actual warming of the earth (from whatever cause) has STOPPED, is insane.  It tells you more about the total idiocy of the mainstream media, and the total wimpiness of Republican politicians like John McCain and President Bush, than it does about the climate of the earth.