Forget Global Warming

The other day, I jokingly made a comment over on my blog buddy Myrhaf's site:

REPENT! THE END IS NEAR! WE ARE ENTERING THE NEXT ICE AGE!

I feel pretty safe making that prediction.

Sometimes, I can be downright omniscient, even in jest.

Today, I read an article over at Canada.com by Timothy Patterson (who is "professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University"). Apparently, Global Warming is NOT what we have to worry about:

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments."

Mind you, I am NOT hopping aboard the Global Cooling bandwagon yet, because, as Dr. Patterson says:

"Meantime, we need to continue research into [climate change]...and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

On a related note, Myrhaf's post, on which I commented, was about a website which is pointing out flaws in temperature measuring stations. One post by Anthony Watts at norcalblogs.com specifically compares two temperature measuring stations and their results. One station, which has seen a lot of human construction around it, including a parking lot, a cell tower, and even a barbecue grill, shows steady warming over the last century. The scary thing Watts points out about the station:

"The data from this station is part of the USHCN (US Historical Climatological Network) and is used in the computer modeling used to predict climate change."

The other station, which is out in the middle of nowhere and has been for the last century, shows an initial drop followed by relatively consistent temperatures.

In other words, the argument for man-made Global Warming does have some validity. Through human construction and activity, we are affecting the temperature measurements.

Friday Funny

A precious little girl walks into a pet shop and asks, in the sweetest little lisp, between two missing teeth,

"Excuthe me, mithter, do you keep widdle wabbits?"

As the shopkeeper's heart melts, he gets down on his knees so that he's on her level and asks,

"Do you want a widdle white wabbit, or a thoft and fuwwy bwack wabbit, or maybe one like that cute widdle bwown wabbit over there?"

She, in turn, blushes, rocks on her heels, puts her hands on her knees, leans forward and says, in a tiny quiet voice,

"I don't think my python weally gives a thit."

Parsing Fred

Over at Washingtonpost.com, Chris Cillizza has parsed the recent presidential poll numbers, and come to the following conclusion about Fred Thompson:

"All of the numbers seem to bear out the conventional wisdom surrounding Thompson's candidacy -- that he is the most electable conservative in the race."

Strong words indeed. But not everyone is so enthusiastic about Fred.

In an editorial on Newsweek, George Will had this to say about Fred:

"So far, Thompson is 99 percent charm."

While Will takes the view that the Thompson campaign is all charm, no substance, I am not so sure.

If you take the time to read Fred's blogs over at Abcradionetworks.com, you will see Fred has a solid foundation of political beliefs (whether you as an individual agree with them is another matter).

For me, the question about Fred is: What are his solutions to the problems? He defines problems well, in a way which I agree 100%. But what will he do as president to solve the problems?

I have my toe on the Thompson bandwagon. As soon as he presents some solutions, I may jump on the rest of the way.

Don't mess with the herd...

This is one of those things you have to see to believe. Lions and crocs and buffalo, oh my!



Special thanks to Myrhaf and NoodleFood for this one.

Fredux

There is a thorough analysis of Fred Thompson's "political positions and votes as they pertain to all three parties" (Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians) over at ControlCongress.com by Jace Walden.

From the post, here are the things which I personally like about Fred (in no particular order):

–Would like to impose a two-year limit on welfare benifits for recipients who are able to work
–Would like to slightly increase spending on national defense
–Supports decreasing the Captial Gains Tax, Cigarette Taxes, Income Taxes, taxes on domestic and international businesses, and would also support eliminating taxes on savings and investment
–Believes that a woman should be able to seek an abortion under any circumstances as long as it is in the first trimester
–Is not “Christian enough” for James Dobson and the religious right
–Supports eliminating government regulation to encourage [investment] and economic expansion in the private sector
–Wants to allow the natural cycle of the market to create jobs without government intervention
–Supports school choice programs so that parents receive vouchers that can be used to send their children to participating schools.
–Wants to decrease spending in federal health care programs and research
–Would like to limit the growth of government to 2%

Here are the things I don't like about Fred (again, in no particular order):

–Would increase penalties on the selling and trafficking of illegal drugs
–Voted for McCain-Feingold

I did leave out a few things from the Walden post about which I don't really care.

But taken on the whole, and assuming this post portrayed him accurately, Fred looks like someone I could vote for. Mind you, I am not endorsing Fred...yet.

Here comes Fred!

You would have to be hiding under a rock today to not realize that former Senator Fred Thompson is running for president.

What can we expect from Fred? A conservative in the Reagan mold, without the Newt Gingrich baggage.

Here are some snippets from a speech Fred gave on May 4th:

Some want us, to the extent possible, to withdraw from the world that presents us with so many problems, in the hope they will go away. Some would push us towards protectionist trade policies. Others see a solution in raising taxes and redistributing the income among our citizens.

Wrong on all counts. These are defensive, defeatist policies that have consistently been proven wrong. They are not what America is all about.

Let's talk about the issues here at home, first. A lot of folks in Washington suffer from a big misconception about our economy. They confuse the well-being of our government with the wealth of our nation. Adam Smith pointed out the same problem in his day, when many governments mixed up how much money the king had with how well-off the country was.

Taxes are necessary. But they don't make the country any better off. At best they simply move money from the private sector to the government. But taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from working, saving, investing, and taking risks.

That is the key thing liberals always miss when discussing taxes (which is why I put it in bold). People take financial risks for one reason: they have nothing to lose, whether they have been backed into a financial corner, or they have more money than they will ever need. Either way, taxes take away the ability of either of these people to take risks. If not for the risk takers, you wouldn't be reading this right now. Government funding didn't put personal computers in everyone's home. While government funding may have started the Internet, it was private funding that made it take off.

That's why the economy booms when taxes are cut. When the Kennedy tax cuts were passed in the 1960s, the economy boomed. When Reagan cut taxes in 1981, we went from economic malaise to a new morning in America. And when George Bush cut taxes in 2001, he took a declining economy he inherited to an economic expansion -- despite 9-11, the NASDAQ bubble and corporate scandals.

The Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes. They only want to target the rich, they say. A word of advice to anyone in the middle class -- don't stand anywhere near that target.

I see Fred knows his history. That was how the 16th Amendment got passed.

But for those of you who see taxation as a necessary evil which is needed for the government to solve whatever ails society, Fred has this to say:

The growth of government is not solving these problems; it's causing a lot of them. Every level of new bureaucracy that is created develops a level of bureaucracy beneath it, which creates another one. Pretty soon there is no accountability in the system. A new head of a department or agency comes in from out of town and, after a protracted confirmation fight, wants to spend his or her few years in Washington making great policy and solving national problems, not fighting with their own bureaucrats. So they just let well enough alone. Then you start seeing the results. Departments that can't pass an audit, computer systems that don't work, intelligence breakdowns, people in over their heads.

Yet people in both parties continue to try to federalize and regulate at the national level more and more aspects of American society -- things that have traditionally been handled at the state and local level. We must remember that we have states to serve as policy laboratories for innovation and competition. That's how we got welfare reform. Our system also allows for the diversity of our large country. Our attitude should be, let the federal government do what it is supposed to be doing -- competently. Then maybe we will give it something else to do.

On illegal immigration:

The government could start by securing our nation's borders. A sovereign nation that can't do that is not a sovereign nation. This is secondarily an immigration issue. It's primarily a national security issue. We were told twenty years ago if we produced a comprehensive solution, we'd solve the illegal immigration problem. Twelve million illegals later, we're being told that same thing again. I don't believe most Americans are as concerned about the 12 million that are here as they are about the next 12 million and the next 12 million after that. I think they're thinking: "Prove you can secure the border and then people of good will can sit down and work out the rest of it, while protecting those folks who play by the rules."

On term limits and Social Security/Medicare:

Sometimes I think that I'm the last guy around who still thinks term limits is a good idea. The professionalization of politics saps people's courage. Their desire to keep their job and not upset anybody overrides all else -- even if it hurts the country.

So the [Social Security/Medicare funding] problem gets kicked a little further down the road. This action is based on the premise that our generation is too greedy to help the next generation. I believe just the opposite is true. If grandmom and granddad think that a little sacrifice will help their grandchildren when they get married, try to buy a home or have children, they will respond to a credible call to make that sacrifice -- if they don't think that the sacrifice is going down some government black hole.

I am going to quote my friend, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I don't think he'll mind, even though it was a private conversation. He said, "People talk a lot about moral issues, but the greatest moral issue facing our generation is the fact that we are bankrupting the next generation. People talk about wanting to make a difference. Here we could make a difference for generations to come."

Of course, anyone who quotes Tom Coburn is ok by me.

It's a Gas Gas Gas!

So how much of our current gas prices go to taxes, versus oil company profits?

A simple answer can be found in a typical oil company financial statement. For the sake of discussion, I will use Exxon Mobil.

According to Exxon's last SEC quarterly filing from March 2007, Exxon paid over $23.6 billion in taxes, whereas their after-tax net income was $9.2 billion (although that figure includes over $3 billion in non-oil related income).

Of course, government taxation doesn't end with the oil company. Since most gas stations are franchised or independently owned, they pay taxes too. According to the Department of Energy's website, 14% of April's retail gas prices were for severence taxes, import tariffs excise taxes, and royalties paid to the government. Since I am using the March data for Exxon, I will also use the March figure from the DOE, which was 15.5%.

Here is where it becomes tricky to determine an actual figure for the cost of government taxation, because the DOE figures do not include income tax cost. For the sake of argument, I will drop the consideration of income taxes paid by gas retailers, since most of their income is derived from other operations. Even the DOE figures for March 2007 put the distribution and marketing costs (where the gas retailer's profits would be, as well as their related income tax cost) at 8.5%. (Ironically, since 2000, it seems the distribution and marketing costs seem to go up when the retail price of gas drops. Although the statistical correlation is not precise.)

Based on the DOE definitions, the income tax passed through to the consumer by the refiners would seem to be included in the "refining costs and profits" category, which is defined as "the difference between the monthly average of the spot price of gasoline...(used as a proxy for the value of gasoline or diesel fuel as it exits the refinery) and the average price of crude oil purchased by refiners (the crude oil component)." The cost for this during March was 23.6%.

If we assume Exxon is the typical oil refiner (admittedly a huge assumption), and apply Exxon's income tax costs as a percentage onto the DOE figures from March, then 25%* of the DOE's "refining costs and profits" was paid to income taxes.

25% of the 23.6% of the retail price of gas means an additional 6% of the retail price went to the government, on top of the other 15.5% that went to taxes. This makes 21.5% of the retail price of gasoline going to the government. Considering this is a potentially conservative estimate because it gives no consideration is given to gas retailers' income taxes, plus I overestimated Exxon's passed along costs (thereby minimizing the income tax impact on the pass along costs), this is a pretty hefty amount. Of the average retail price in March of $2.563/gallon, 55.1 cents went to the government.

How much did Exxon walk away with? 35% of the DOE's "refining costs and profits", which is 8.2% of the retail price of gas. Of the average retail price in March of $2.563/gallon, 21 cents went to oil company profits.

As I have said before, there are a lot of assumptions built into these numbers, and feel free to point out flaws in my math. But the truth is that government costs more than oil companies, even if my figures are off.

On a related note, one thing I noticed in the DOE figures is that crude oil as a percentage of the retail cost of gas has gone up in the past seven years, from 41.4% in April 2000, to 50.3% in April 2007. While it has fluctuated over this period, from a low of 35% in May 2001 to a high of 60.1% in January 2006, the overall trend has been towards the price of crude oil driving the retail price of gasoline. Supply and demand anyone?


*The actual numbers used to determine the 25% were:
Exxon's total income taxes - $6.784 billion

divided by the sum of the below plus the figure above to get the percentage of the income tax passed along

Exxon's production and manufacturing expenses - $7.283 billion
Exxon's selling, general and administrative expenses - $3.392 billion (this may include expenses not related to oil refining, however the bulk of it would apply)
Exxon's total net income (including non-oil related income) - $9.280 billion

UPDATED: I stand corrected.

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and a representative of an oil refiners trade organization (I forgot his name, sorry) pointed out that up to 15% of our refined oil is IMPORTED. That little factoid is not presented in the DOE or Exxon figures, but is quite important to consider.

Another thing he pointed out is that it takes up to 20 years to build and run a new refinery before an oil company can see a profit from it. If you were an oil company in the current energy environment, how comfortable would you feel doing that?

NFL Draft Challenge

Instead of the usual Friday Trivia, today we will test your NFL draft prognostication abilities.

The rules for the NFL Draft Challenge are simple: list the first 10 players taken in the NFL draft tomorrow, in the order they are taken. Just post your picks before the start of the draft tomorrow (Saturday) at noon. You only have to show the draft order, the player's name, and their position (although I am showing a little more information below).

Now for my picks:

1. Oakland (2-14)- JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU
All the experts and talking heads say the Raiders will take JaMarcus Russell, and I cannot call that a bad pick. However, how many quarterbacks have the Raiders drafted that have gone on to have a great career with the Raiders? Just Kenny Stabler (and he was a 2nd round pick). As a Raider fan, I would rather see them take Calvin Johnson, who is a sure thing.

2. Detroit (3-13)- Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia Tech
Expect the Lions to trade this pick away, probably to Atlanta. If Matt Millen drafted another wide receiver, the Detroit fans would shoot him (in Detroit, literally).

With all of the issues "dogging" Michael Vick lately, the Falcons drafting the best wide receiver in Atlanta's history (not to mention Johnson has a tremendous work ethic on top of his freakish abilities) would be a major "catch" for them.

3. Cleveland (4-12)- Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame
How many quarterbacks state before the draft that they WANT to play in Cleveland? Bernie Kosar is the last one I remember, and he turned out ok. The Brownies desperately need a quarterback (Charlie Frye is NOT the answer), and Quinn could be the guy.

4. Tampa Bay (4-12)- Joe Thomas, OT, Wisconsin
The Bucs need offensive line help, and Thomas is the best in this draft.

5. Arizona (5-11)- Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson
It is safe to say the Cards will pick a defensive player, but which one? Adams is arguably the most highly rated defensive prospect.

6. Washington (5-11)- Laron Landry, DB, LSU
Washington has already said they are taking either Landry or DT Amobi Okoye. Since Landry is probably the better of the two, and since Adam Archuleta has been released by the Skins, expect Landry to be the pick.

7. Minnesota (6-10)- Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma
Expect the Vikings to draft some secondary help later in the draft. For now, this team needs some offense. Chester Taylor was solid last year, but not exceptional. Also, don't be surprised if another team trades up to this spot to get Peterson.

8. Atlanta (7-9)- Jamaal Anderson, DE, Arkansas
With the Lions trading down to this spot, expect to see a defensive player picked here. Anderson could give the Lions a much needed pass rusher.

9. Miami (6-10)- Amobi Okoye, DT, Louisville
The Dolphins could also go with DT Alan Branch, but Okoye has more upside.

10. Houston (6-10)- Levi Brown, OT, Penn State
With Houston's awful pass blocking, and less than stellar run blocking, offensive line help is desperately needed here.

Friday Trivia! "April showers" edition

First, the answers from last week's trivia (no one got all of them):

1. On a Friday the 13th in 1307, what group had all their members in France arrested under orders from King Philip IV of France? The Knights Templar
2. After today, when is the next occurrence of a Friday falling on the 13th day of the month? July
3. Who is the only actor from the original Friday the 13th movie who has his name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? Kevin Bacon
4. In the year 13 A.D., who was the emperor of Rome? Augustus
5. Which rock band released the album 13 in November of 1970? The Doors

This week's trivia:

1. What was the first song released from Peter Gabriel's 1986 album So AFTER the single Big Time?

2. Which battle was Field Marshall Arthur Wellesley best known for?

3. Who was the first running back in NFL history to gain over 1,000 yards rushing for three different teams?

4. What song, first featured in the movie The Hollywood Revue of 1929, later became the title and theme song of a 1952 musical?

5. The Rolling Stones got their name from what musician's 1950 song, Rollin' Stone?

Friday Trivia! "Friday the 13th" edition

1. On a Friday the 13th in 1307, what group had all their members in France arrested under orders from King Philip IV of France?

2. After today, when is the next occurrence of a Friday falling on the 13th day of the month?

3. Who is the only actor from the original Friday the 13th movie who has his name on the Hollywood Walk of Fame?

4. In the year 13 A.D., who was the emperor of Rome?

5. Which rock band released the album 13 in November of 1970?

Gone fishing

I am going to take some time off from blogging. It is a pretty slow news cycle right now until we get closer to the NFL Draft.

However, I will continue to post the Friday Trivia segments.

Friday Trivia! Easter edition

1. Who had his first number one hit with the song Sailing back in 1980?

2. What is the name of Bugs Bunny's girlfriend in the movie Space Jam?

3. Which former Negro League and Major League Baseball player hit a 477 foot home run in Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, a feat matched only by Mickey Mantle?

4. What dish is usually made with two halves of an English muffin, and topped with smoked bacon or ham, poached eggs, and hollandaise sauce?

5. Which 1968 song by the band Cream was later covered by both Lynyrd Skynyrd and Rush?

Quotes of the Day: Global Warming

"Some wealthy elitists in our country who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns." - Bob Murray

Read the whole article over at the New York Sun website.

Also, there was a good editorial by William F. Buckley yesterday, which compares Global Warming fervor to the Spanish Inquisition. From the editorial:

"Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific acts of natural propitiation.

The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative, leaving to one side subsidiary specifications."

The "Idol" on "American Idol"

It is rare that you will hear me recommend a tv show, and even rarer to hear me recommend something as popular as "American Idol". Why would I bother to recommend a show which continually tops the ratings?

Two words: Melinda Doolittle.

I can appreciate there are people out there who do not watch the show because the talent is generally unworthy of anyone's attention. Occasionally, a mediocre talent will put on a great performance, otherwise known as a "blind pig finding an acorn". Only twice can I recall examples of an American Idol contestant/winner worthy of a cd purchase or MP3 download (Kelly Clarkson and Bo Bice).

But this year, they have hit a gold mine. Melinda Doolittle is head and shoulders above, not only this year's contestants, but ALL the contestants the show has EVER had.

Earlier this season, after one of her performances, I turned to my wife and said, "She reminded me of Gladys Knight." Then Simon Cowell proceeded to compare her to a "young Gladys Knight". My wife gave me a look which said, "How did you do that?"

Seriously, Melinda's vocals are comparable to Gladys Knight or Aretha Franklin. She is pitch perfect. On top of that, she "feels" the songs. By that I mean she performs the songs with the feelings inherent within the lyrics. Last night, she did the old standard I Got Rhythm, which I always thought was kind of a silly song. She corrected me of that misinterpretation, by showing that it is a song of happiness about life. THAT is the art of singing.

If you are looking for a sexy singer, look somewhere else. Melinda is NOT sexy, but she is a rare talent.

Frankly, it has been too long since there has been ANY singer come onto the musical scene with the whole package like Ms. Doolittle. There have been singers with great voices, and singers who could perform great, but none that I recall who could match Ms. Doolittle.

I suggest you watch the show just once to hear Melinda Doolittle. It may be a few decades before another talent like her comes along.

A Diamond among Trash

For the past two days, my wife and I were cleaning out our basement.

My wife pulls a little book out of a box and asks me if I want to keep it. The front of the book says "Autographs". I say, "YES!"

I immediately paged through the book. The names leapt out at me: Ron Jaworski...Hal Carmichael...Randy Logan...John Bunting...Wally Henry...Vince Papale...

Back in the late 70's, my mother took me and a friend up to the Philadelphia Eagles training camp in West Chester, PA. I bought that little autograph book to take with me.

The one autograph I remember the most was Harold Carmichael (he signed his name "Hal Carmichael"). When you are a kid standing right next to him, he was HUGE! It felt like the back of my head had to touch my spine to see his face. But he was a complete gentleman, just like the rest of the Eagles.

The whole experience was one that has stuck with me even to this day. Those Eagles were larger than life figures to me, even now. Those men immortalized themselves in my memory, by doing nothing more than taking a few seconds of their time to sign their name in a book for a kid. God bless them.

When I think of all the great teams of the 70's and 80's, the Eagles stand out for me. Not because they were great on the field, but because they were great OFF the field too. If they had any sins as individuals, those were erased in my mind when they took the time to sign my little book.

When I hear about athletes who won't sign autographs for kids, I think of what a disservice they do to their own legacy. What you do as an athlete on the field may put you in the record books, the Hall of Fame, on television, in commercials, and secure your financial future. But the few seconds it takes to sign a piece of paper for a child is a bond that goes beyond all the fame and accolades. It places you on a pantheon above all other athletes in the mind of that child, for the entire lifetime of that child.

And you want an extra $20 for that?

The Attorney General Dead-end, Part 2

As I pointed out in yesterday's post, the whole attorney general firing scandal is a dead-end. Simply put, feel free to complain about it, but don't you dare suggest a solution.

Probably the best example of a similar scandal was Bill Clinton's last minute pardons before he left office. The fact is that he took money for his presidential library in order to issue some of those pardons. We can all agree what he did was highly unethical.

But if we look at it as a problem, what would the solution be? We could amend the Constitution to limit or eliminate the presidential pardon power.

If we limit pardons by giving Congress oversight, what do we gain? Congress is not known for its high ethical standards.

If we eliminate the presidential pardon power, what happens when the court system makes a glaring mistake? Sorry, we will just have to live with it.

Again, we come back to a problem without a solution, or where the solutions are worse than the problem itself.

But if you absolutely positively MUST have a solution to the problem, it is really quite simple: Vote for ethical politicians! Our government does not, and should not, run on auto-pilot. Take responsibility for YOUR VOTE! If you vote for unethical politicians, don't blame the government, because YOU made it!

The Attorney General Dead-end

Over at Ragged Thots, Robert George has once again posted on the so-called attorney general scandal.

In his post, Robert links to a post by Josh Marshall, which makes the case for why this scandal is important:

"Whoever's in power and however intense things get, most of us assume that the party in power won't interfere with the vote count. We also assume that the administration won't use the IRS to harrass or imprison political opponents. And we assume that criminal prosecutions will be undertaken or not undertaken on the facts.

Yes, there's prosecutorial discretion. And the grandstanding, press-hungry DA is almost a cliche. But when a politician gets indicted for corruption we basically all assume it's because they're corrupt -- or, given the assumption of innocence, that the prosecution is undertaken because the prosecutor believes their case is strong and that the defendent committed the crime."

An indictment is NOT a conviction. Incorrect assumptions by the public is NOT a reason to change anything, except possibly public misconceptions. Did we learn NOTHING from the Duke lacrosse case?

"What we seem to see are repeated cases in which US Attorneys were fired for not pursuing bogus prosecutions of persons of the opposite party. Or vice versa. There's little doubt that that is why McKay and Iglesias were fired and there's mounting evidence that this was the case in other firings as well. The idea that a senator calls a US Attorney at home just weeks before a federal elections and tries to jawbone him into indicting someone to help a friend get reelected is shocking. Think about it for a second. It's genuinely shocking. At a minimum one would imagine such bad acts take place with more indirection and deniability. And yet the Domenici-Iglesias call has now been relegated to the status of a footnote in the expanding scandal, notwithstanding the fact that there's now documentary evidence showing that Domenici's substantial calls to the White House and Justice Department played a direct role in getting Iglesias fired.

So what you have here is this basic line being breached. But not only that. What is equally threatening is the systematic nature of the offense. This isn't one US Attorney out to get Democrats or one rogue senator trying to monkey around with the justice system. The same thing happened in Washington state and New Mexico -- with the same sort of complaints being received and acted upon at the White House and the Department of Justice. Indeed, there appears to have been a whole process in place to root out prosecutors who wouldn't prostitute their offices for partisan goals.

We all understand that politics and the law aren't two hermetically sealed domains. And we understand that partisanship may come into play at the margins. But we expect it to be the exception to the rule and a rare one. But here it appears to have become the rule rather than the exception, a systematic effort at the highest levels to hijack the Justice Department and use it to advance the interest of one party over the other by use of selective prosecution."

Well said. Now that we have identified the problem, what shall we do to fix it?

It seems clear: We need more Congressional oversight into the Executive Branch. We will need to give Congress authority (i.e. advise and consent) over all presidential attorney appointments. That will make the president think twice before appointing anyone for strictly political reasons! It will also make him think twice before firing anyone too, because then he will have to appoint someone acceptable to Congress!

Of course, Congress will be able to do with the attorneys what they did with Bush's judicial appointments: filibuster until they are withdrawn. Which means he possibly won't be able to appoint ANY attorneys! Just think how much that would mean to an opposition party which likes to keep their hands in the cookie jar?

Do we REALLY want to give Congress more power? I will grant what Bush did was unethical, but there is a VERY good reason for the president to have this authority. If he misuses it, what happens? He will get plenty of indictments, but no convictions. He will tie up the judicial system with a bunch of frivolous prosecutions.

On the other hand, if the president does NOT have the legal power to pursue corruption in opposition parties, what is to stop Congress from giving itself more immunity than it already has?

Frankly, this is a case where the cure is far worse than the disease. Let the Media have their field day over this "scandal", but don't dare to ask what should be done to fix it.

Friday Trivia! Irish edition

1. Who originally did the song Take Me to the River which was later covered by the Talking Heads?

2. Which food company was originally formed as the Minnesota Valley Canning Company, and later purchased by General Mills?

3. What was the nickname of the Vermont Republic's militia led by Ethan Allen?

4. What Oscar-nominated 1991 film was based on a novel by Fannie Flagg?

5. Who wrote the 1940 novel The Power and the Glory?

ANSWERS:
1. Al Green
2. Green Giant
3. Green Mountain Boys
4. Fried Green Tomatoes
5. Graham Greene

Time to "cut and run" from Detroit?

Gotta love Congressman Tim Walberg. From Freep.com:

A Republican congressman representing rural southern Michigan is taking heat for saying that most of Iraq is at least as under control as Detroit is.

Freshman Rep. Tim Walberg's comments, made Monday on WILS-AM in Lansing, didn't sit well with Democrats -- who issued a news release Wednesday -- or the office of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

"Any reference to Detroit as a war zone is absurd," said Matt Allen, the mayor's spokesman.

Walberg of Tipton didn't quite say Detroit was a war zone. He said most of Iraq "is reasonably under control, at least as well as Detroit."

Walberg's spokesman, Matt Lahr, said the congressman "frequently shares sentiments expressed to him by the soldiers and veterans he meets." He wouldn't say whether a soldier or soldiers made the Detroit remark.

There have been 3,223 U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the war began in 2003, and more than 10,000 Iraqi civilian and security forces killed since January 2006, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. About 1,576 people died as a result of homicide or nonnegligent manslaughter in Detroit since the beginning of 2003.

While the numbers don't equate, they are at least comparable.

When can we expect a timetable for pulling out of Detroit?

I can see the protests now: "Kwame lied! People died!"

Personally, I think this whole thing is a smoke screen. The real problem is Ohio's nuclear ambitions. It wouldn't be so bad if not for their constant threats to "wipe Indiana off the map".

R.I.P. Larry "Bud" Melman

According to CNN.com:

"The balding, bespectacled nebbish who gained cult status as the oddball Larry "Bud" Melman on David Letterman's late-night television shows has died after a long illness.

Brooklyn-born Calvert DeForest, who was 85, died Monday at a hospital on Long Island, the Letterman show announced Wednesday."

I always thought Melman was one of the funniest parts of the Letterman show. Melman's brutal sincerity made a nice complement to Letterman's tongue-in-cheek style. Melman brought a comic sledgehammer to Letterman's straight man setups.

The saddest part of the story:

"There will be no funeral service for DeForest, who left no survivors."

God bless you DeForest. You made a lot of people laugh, and that is a pretty good legacy to leave behind.

Popular Culture?

Define "popular culture"?

In this day and age, that seems a lot harder to do.

Considering that for most of the 20th century, there was a dominance of popular culture by certain mediums:

In the early 20th century, radio, newspapers, and movies tended to dominate. In the mid to late 20th century, television dominated it.

Sometime in the 1990's, the popular culture started to fragment, starting with the rise of the Internet and satellite tv (100's of channels, all at the click of a button).

Nowadays, what people think can be influenced in hundreds of different ways. Unlike 50 years ago, it is no longer controlled by three television networks and the local newspaper.

I'm not saying there isn't a popular culture. What I am saying is that it is significantly harder to use case studies to draw conclusions over the entire culture. We have more "pocket" cultures today than we have had in the past.

Another Global Warming Hole

Yet another hole has been shot into the swiss cheese theory known as Global Warming.

It seems the main basis for Global Warming is flawed: an average global temperature.

Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.

..."It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

Does this mean my house in the north Georgia hills won't be beachfront property? Now I'm REALLY disappointed...

(Hat tip to www.sciencedaily.com)

In other news...

From CNN.com:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- About one-third of the people living in the nation's capital are functionally illiterate, compared with about one-fifth nationally, according to a report on the District of Columbia."

...and that's just at Capitol Hill.

The Illogical Extreme of Global Warming

I hope the enviro-nuts are happy now.

Because of the so-called danger of Global Warming, we now have scientists coming up with hare-brained schemes to cool the planet. From CNN.com:

"Scientists are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" to filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.

These are costly projects of last resort -- in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own -- beyond their exorbitant costs -- including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses."

This scares me more than any amount of Global Warming.

For example, what happens if we set off a volcano, and then another one erupts naturally? How does global cooling sound to you?

Friday Trivia! "Friday Night Light" edition

1. In Einstein's equation E=mc^2, what does "c" represent?

2. What poem included the lines:

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die

3. Who played Angela Bower on the sitcom Who's the Boss?

4. Lt. Colonel Henry Lee, who served in the Continental Army during the American Revolution, and was also father to General Robert E. Lee, was better known by what nickname?

5. Cassius Clay won the 1960 Olympic gold medal for boxing in which weight division?

ANSWERS:
1. The speed of light
2. The Charge of the Light Brigade
3. Judith Light
4. Light Horse Harry
5. Light Heavyweight

Global Warming and Religion

Evangelicals seem to be having a little spat amongst themselves over the issue of Global Warming, according to a report from CNN.com:

"A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at this week's meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The group rebuffed complaints from some of the religious right's leading lights about the organization's newfound focus on global warming.

The group, which represents 45,000 churches and more than 60 evangelical denominations, took no action on a letter sent by 25 conservative Christian leaders demanding that the organization restrain its Washington policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, from putting forward his views on global warming.

"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children," said the letter, which was signed by prominent religious conservatives such as James Dobson, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer.

Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God."

But Dobson and the other signatories of the letter to the National Association of Evangelicals board said evidence supporting global warming was not conclusive and that the organization "lacks the expertise to settle the controversy."

"The issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically," they said, calling on the group's board to either rein in Cizik or encourage him to resign."

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute! "The issue should be addressed scientifically and not theologically"?! If the issue were Creationism vs. Evolution, would they say the same thing? Absolutely not!

Ironic hypocrisy aside, they are right. This is STILL a scientific issue, because science has NOT definitively said this is going to happen. Yes people, Global Warming is a THEORY, not a scientific FACT.

Even the Theory of Evolution has more scientific evidence going for it than Global Warming does. Considering evangelicals don't accept the Theory of Evolution, why on Earth would they EVER accept Global Warming?

Matt Drudge and Jennifer Garner

I enjoy reading the Drudge Report, and consider it one of my main news sources on the Internet. However, Drudge printed a hugely misleading headline to one of his linked stories today: "Actress Jennifer Garner Confesses Climate Change Makes her Cry..." (which links to an article on www.postchronicle.com.

When you go to the linked article, which is about Jennifer Garner, the pertinent section of the article reads:

"Jennifer has also confessed she cries more now she is a mother. The actress believes the experience has made her more caring.

She said: "Since I became a mother, I cry more because I care about things more.

"I can't watch a movie where something happens to a child. And I've always cared about global warming and breast cancer, but now there seems to be an urgency about them.""

If you read her quote closely, she is NOT saying that she cries about Global Warming. She says "now there seems to be an urgency" about it.

I won't say that she doesn't cry about it, but her quote does NOT say that. Drudge is inferring it.

When the government runs your life

I was reading this article on MSN about how FEMA cleared out a trailer park:

"HAMMOND, La. - Shortly after noon, FEMA agents began rapping on the trailer doors, their knocks resounding inside the tinny white homes. Everyone in the park, the agents announced without warning, would have to pack and leave within 48 hours.

Where do we go now?

Why?

What about school?

To the residents of the Yorkshire Mobile Home Park, all of them families displaced by Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency crews offered answers that were uncertain and sometimes contradictory. As residents spilled out of their homes to meet their similarly bewildered neighbors, the adults wondered where they would be sent next, and how far they might wind up from their jobs. Some began sobbing. Then the children, seeing their parents' tears, began crying, too. A woman fainted, and an ambulance came.

"It was like shock and awe," recalled Ron Harrell, 40, a tenant. "We called it Hurricane FEMA."

The Yorkshire residents were eventually scattered to other FEMA parks. But their sudden evacuation last weekend illustrates the upheavals that still accompany life in a government trailer park 18 months after the hurricane struck the Gulf Coast in August 2005."

The key phrase there is "18 months after the hurricane struck". So they are saying that these people cannot find a way to make enough money to pay for their own housing after A YEAR AND A HALF?!

These people have moved out of the "victim" phase, and are now firmly in the "welfare leach" phase.

When you turn responsibility for a part of your life, such as housing, over to the government, don't cry when the government decides to turn your life upside down.

It amazes me there are still people who want to hand responsibility for our health care over to government bureaucrats like FEMA.

Friday Trivia! Headwear edition

Why headwear? Why not!

1. Which Prince song was covered by the band Hindu Love Gods (which was made up of the band members from REM and Warren Zevon) in 1990?

2. Who was the second female to rule Ancient Egypt as pharaoh, although is generally considered the first woman in history to rule as a monarch with all the powers normally reserved for male monarchs?

3. Which famous fictional character did Tom Petty portray in the music video for his song Don't Come Around Here No More?

4. What was the title of the next-to-last film Billy Wilder directed in 1978, which starred William Holden?

5. Which cape is the site of the tallest lighthouse in America?

ANSWERS:
1. Raspberry Beret
2. Hatshepsut
3. The Mad Hatter
4. Fedora
5. Cape Hatteras

Out sick

I'm not feeling very bloggy right now, thanks to a head cold. I'm taking off from blogging until Friday, when I will return with the usual Friday Trivia.

The Blackout of Paris

It seems the Associated Press tried an experiment recently: a week with no news items on Paris Hilton. Apparently, no one noticed. From an AP editorial at CNN.com:

So you may have heard: Paris Hilton was ticketed the other day for driving with a suspended license.

Not huge news, even by celebrity-gossip standards. Here at The Associated Press, we put out an initial item of some 300 words. But it actually meant more to us than that.

It meant the end of our experimental blackout on news about Paris Hilton.

It was only meant to be a weeklong ban -- not the boldest of journalistic initiatives, and one, we realized, that might seem hypocritical once it ended. And it wasn't based on a view of what the public should be focusing on -- the war in Iraq, for example, or the upcoming election of the next leader of the free world, as opposed to the doings of a partygoing celebrity heiress/reality TV star most famous for a grainy sex video.

No, editors just wanted to see what would happen if we didn't cover this media phenomenon, this creature of the Internet gossip age, for a full week. After that, we'd take it day by day. Would anyone care? Would anyone notice? And would that tell us something interesting?

It turned out that people noticed plenty -- but not in the way that might have been expected. None of the thousands of media outlets that depend on AP called in asking for a Paris Hilton story. No one felt a newsworthy event had been ignored.

So why would I bother posting this? Simply for the end of the editorial:

So what have we learned from the ban? "It's hard to tell what this really changes, since we didn't have to make any hard decisions," says Jesse Washington, AP's entertainment editor. "So we'll continue to use our news judgment on each item, individually."

Which means that for the immediate future, if not always, we'll still have Paris.

Friday Trivia! Movie Edition

Sorry folks. No clever answers this week. Just doing straight movie trivia. Enjoy!

1. Which actress starred in different films with the following actors: Orson Welles, Ray Liotta, Telly Savalas, and Stacy Keach?

2. Which Clint Eastwood film was originally titled Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo?

3. What was the title of the 1986 made-for-tv sequel to the Academy Award winning film Patton?

4. In which film did Linda Blair star with Oscar winner Louise Fletcher, as well as four other Oscar nominees? (Note: This film did NOT receive a single Academy Award nomination.)

5. In 1940, which of the following Best Picture nominees won the Academy Award: Dark Victory, Gone with the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Love Affair, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka, Of Mice and Men, Stagecoach, The Wizard of Oz, or Wuthering Heights?

ANSWERS:
1. Pia Zadora
2. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
3. The Last Days of Patton
4. Exorcist II: The Heretic
5. Gone with the Wind

Ed's NFL Mock Draft

With the NFL scouting combine completed, I thought it might be a good time to do a mock draft:

1. Oakland (2-14)- Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia Tech
All the mock drafts have the Raiders taking JaMarcus Russell, but Calvin Johnson is the once-in-a-lifetime prospect. To satisfy their quarterback needs, I predict the Raiders will either sign a free agent quarterback or trade for David Carr. Also, considering the Raiders draft history of quarterbacks, Al Davis has to be a little trigger shy on taking a quarterback with this pick (anyone remember Todd Marinovich?).

2. Detroit (3-13)- Joe Thomas, OT, Wisconsin
The Lions have a lot of needs, but Thomas is the best player available at this point.

3. Cleveland (4-12)- JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU
Russell's invisibility at the scouting combine drops him, but only to here. Rumor has it the Browns are in love with him. He won't last past this point. In fact, don't be surprised if the Browns trade up to the first pick in order to get Russell.

4. Tampa Bay (4-12)- Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma
No, I don't think the Bucs will take a running back. I actually think someone else will trade up for this pick and take Peterson.

5. Arizona (5-11)- Jamaal Anderson, DE, Arkansas
It is safe to say the Cards will pick a defensive player, but which one? Anderson is arguably the most highly rated defensive prospect.

6. Washington (5-11)- Laron Landry, DB, LSU
The Redskins need a receiver or a defensive player who can contribute immediately. Landry may fit that second part. With the expected release of Adam Archuleta, the Skins will need a safety.

7. Minnesota (6-10)- Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame
Expect the Vikings to draft some secondary help later in the draft. For now, this team needs some offense.

8. Houston (6-10)- Levi Brown, OT, Penn State
If the Texans don't trade up for Adrian Peterson, Brown is a good pass blocker, which is what they desperately need.

9. Miami (6-10)- Amobi Okoye, DT, Louisville
The Dolphins could also go with DT Alan Branch, but Okoye has more upside.

10. Atlanta (7-9)- Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson
With Patrick Kerney leaving, Adams is the logical pick for the Falcons in a secondary-weak draft. If Laron Landry is still here, they will take him instead.

11. San Fransico (7-9)- Alan Branch, DT, Michigan
Coach Mike Nolan could use Branch like a Tony Siragusa for his defense.

12. Buffalo (7-9) - Marshawn Lynch, RB, California
If the Bills do get rid of Willis McGahee, they almost have to pick Lynch here. They might also try to trade up for Adrian Peterson.

13. St. Louis (8-8)- Ted Ginn Jr, WR, Ohio State
Ginn would fill two needs for the Rams. First, Isaac Bruce isn't getting any younger. Second, the Rams return teams were nothing special last year.

14. Carolina (8-8)- Charles Johnson, DE, Georgia
The Panthers will need a defensive end, and they might also need a wide receiver if Keyshawn Johnson decides to retire. I would go with the obvious need and take Johnson.

15. Pittsburgh (8-8) - Adam Carriker, DE, Nebraska
Carriker is a nice fit for new coach Mike Tomlin, who likes to play a 4-3 defense, even though the Steelers are built to play a 3-4. Carriker is big enough to play DT, but fast enough to play DE. A good tweener that gives the Steelers some flexibility.

16. Green Bay (8-8)- Leon Hall, CB, Michigan
Don't be surprised if the Packers trade up to get one of the top running backs. If they don't do that, expect them to take the top corner in the draft. They need one considering the age of their current starters, Charles Woodson (30) and Al Harris (32).

17. Jacksonville (8-8)- Lawrence Timmons, LB, Florida State
This team got the most out of mediocre talent. They can afford to take the best player available and fill a need. Timmons is probably it, but I could easily be wrong on this one.

18. Cincinnati (8-8)- Patrick Willis, LB, Mississippi
The Bengals need an infusion at linebacker, having cut Brian Simmons, having off-the-field issues with Odell Thurman, and having lost David Pollack to a neck injury. Willis is the value pick here.

19. Tennessee (8-8)- Dwayne Jarrett, WR, USC
Vince Young needs someone to throw to, and Jarrett fills the bill nicely.

20. NY Giants (8-8)- Paul Poslouszny, LB, Penn State
The Giants might reach for this one considering they need linebackers.

21. Denver (9-7)- Greg Olson, TE, Miami (Fl)
I can see the Broncos giving Jay Cutler another target. They haven't had a great tight end since Shannon Sharpe, but Olson could fill that role.

22. Dallas (9-7)- Reggie Nelson, FS, Florida
The Boys need another safety, and Nelson is the value pick here.

23. Kansas City (9-7)- Dwayne Bowe, WR, LSU
The Chiefs best wide receiver is Eddie Kennison. This is a wide receiver heavy draft. They could also take Sidney Rice or Craig Davis here.

24. New England (from Seattle)- Sidney Rice, WR, South Carolina
Pick a receiver, any receiver...

25. NY Jets (10-6))- Robert Meachem, WR, Tennessee
Even though the Jets don't need a receiver, this is too good a value to pass up.

26. Philadelphia (10-6) - Ryan Kalil, C, USC
Andy Reid likes to draft offensive and defensive lineman early. He may also pick OL Arron Sears or DE Jarvis Moss here.

27. New Orleans (10-6) - Jarvis Moss, DE, Florida
The Saints are solid on offense, so expect them to take the best defensive player available. SS Michael Griffin is another possibility here.

28. New England (12-4)- Michael Griffin, SS, Texas
The Patriots always seem to need secondary help.

29. Baltimore (13-3)- Craig Davis, WR, LSU
One of the glaring weaknesses the Ravens showed was an inability to dominate in the passing game. Davis is either a steal or a reach here, depending on which ranking list you look at.

30. San Diego (14-2)- Darrelle Revis, CB, Pittsburgh
The Chargers may also go with CB Aaron Ross.

31. Chicago (13-3)- Drew Stanton, QB, Michigan State
After Rex Grossman's performance in the Super Bowl, this pick is kind of obvious.

32. Indianapolis (12-4)- Aaron Ross, CB, Texas
The Colts don't have any glaring needs, so this is a BPA pick.

"Why I Hate Blacks"

No, that is not what I think. "Why I Hate Blacks" is the name of an editorial which was printed in AsianWeek. It was written by an Asian named Kenneth Eng.

The article is mostly racist tripe. If you want a picture of true racism, feel free to click on the link above and read it.

That said, something did occur to me while reading one part of it:

"Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians.

Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time whining about how much they hate "the whites that oppressed them."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion that the whites force upon them?"

Ok Mr. Eng, you're wrong. Christianity hasn't been "forced" on any group of people since the Spanish Inquisition. While one can argue that blacks as slaves may have been coerced into Christianity, they were certainly free to drop it after they were liberated.

But let's put Eng's racist point aside and consider something else. Multiculturalists , as well as blacks themselves, love to point out the uniqueness of "black culture". If so, why is Christianity such a common part of it?

The fact is that blacks are very much a part of American culture, but they don't want to admit it. If black culture were such a unique and separate culture within American society, then whites and blacks would rarely cross paths. It would be a relationship closer to Apartheid than what we have in America now.

Still think black culture is unique? Name one unique part of black culture that no whites EVER partake?

Rap/hip-hop music? Sorry, my daughter likes it. (much to my chagrin)

Jazz and blues? Nope. I've known a lot of people, myself included, who like it.

Unique words used to describe things? Sorry, but you can find that in different sections of the country anyway.

Self-pity? Nah. I've known plenty of whites who follow the "blame everyone but yourself for your situation" philosophy.

A history of slavery? While blacks have a more current history, whites have been enslaved more often throughout history. Nothing uniquely black there.

The experience of racism? Perhaps, but let me ask this: Is racism so common today that ALL blacks experience it? Probably at some point in their lives, but I can claim to have experienced reverse racism. Ask the Duke lacrosse players about reverse racism. Does that mean the Duke lacrosse players are now a part of "black culture"?

Another thing to consider on the issue of the experience of racism is that different blacks respond to racism differently. Are there any blacks who would NOT confront racism when they were the victims of it? Of course. But there are many who would, and would likely confront it through the courts or in the Media (the fact that Eng's editorial was reported throughout the Media shows the power of the Media in these cases).

For example, consider the Grateful Dead. They have a following of people, who refer to themselves as "Deadheads". But does everyone who listens to the Grateful Dead instantly become a Deadhead? No. Does everyone who even likes the Grateful Dead qualify as a Deadhead? No. The subculture of Deadheads are people who attend every Grateful Dead concert to which they are able.

So how can the experience of racism effectively be called a "culture"?

What about black skin? Can that be the basis for a culture? Even when you are black, other blacks will turn on you for not "acting" black. Ever heard the "Aunt Jemima" charge against Condi Rice? How about Michael Steele being called an "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside)? Better yet, how about our "first black president", Bill Clinton?

The truth is that "black culture" is like Global Warming: a fiction made up by liberals based on superficial information. Notice who benefits by the continued belief in a "black culture": liberal politicians, who continue to receive overwhelming support from the blacks, in spite of the fact they don't really do anything FOR blacks.

Think about it: what is there for politicians to do FOR blacks? Affirmative action programs have been out there for decades. Where affirmative action programs are overly favorable to blacks, they tend to be thrown out by the courts, leaving legislators with little or no options.

However, liberal politicians continue spouting the fiction of a "black culture" in order to keep their prize voting bloc together.

If you want to define "black culture" in any way, it is a continuing gratitude to liberal politicians for their support of the Civil Rights movement, as represented by the overwhelming support of blacks during elections. But even that culture is slowly eroding over time, as more blacks start to vote for conservative politicians. Eventually, you will see blacks voting for their own individual interests over political lip service to their skin color.

Just like the cultures of Irish and Italian immigrants before, the "black culture" is slowly fading away as it is incorporated into the American melting pot culture, from where it originally came. Segregation and racism created the "black culture", but it was never really that far removed from the American culture where it grew.

Unfortunately, there are idiots out there like Kenneth Eng, who provide fodder for the liberal politicians to reinforce the need for a "black culture" myth. Racist idiots are to "black culture" as a hot summer is to Global Warming: a convenient excuse to prolong a myth. But like hot summers, we will always have racist idiots. Until most people can objectively see both for what they are within the bigger pictures surrounding them, the myths will continue.

Congratulations Al Gore, now here's the bill...

Now that Al Gore can add an Academy Award to his credentials, it is time for him to pay his bill. His energy bill, that is. From Drudgereport.com:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:


Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

I guess Global Warming is not that big a deal after all? The lesson from Al Gore is clear: "do as I say, not as I do".

But it is too bad the Academy Award for best film didn't go to Chicken Little. It could have been an Oscar sweep for alarmists.

On a separate note, I was watching a show about the "Little Ice Age" recently. I would be far more concerned about another ice age than I would about Global Warming.

Linder on Global Warming

I need to visit Myrhaf's blog more often. On Friday, he posted a link to an editorial by Rep. John Linder about Global Warming.

(For those of you not familiar with Linder, he co-wrote "The FairTax Book" with Neal Boortz.)

Linder tears apart the agenda of the Global Warming theorists:

"In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.
When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world's production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands."

With Al Gore's Academy Award last night, I think it is safe to say the Hollywood establishment could use a little Global Warming because their brains have frozen.

Friday Trivia! Presidential Edition

Since everyone seemed to enjoy the Valentine's trivia, let's try a President's Day edition:

1. Which rock star contributed his hit One Night Love Affair to the soundtrack of the 1985 film "Real Genius" (which starred Val Kilmer)?

2. What was the first name of Marcy's second husband on the sitcom Married with Children?

3. Which R&B/jazz singer, nicknamed "Queen of the Blues", won a Grammy Award for her 1959 rendition of What a Diff'rence a Day Makes?

4. Which former Pro Bowl offensive lineman for the Oakland Raiders and Atlanta Falcons (from 1993-2003) was nicknamed "The Oval Office"?

5. Which former major league pitcher was played by Ronald Reagan in the 1952 film The Winning Team?

ANSWERS:
1. Bryan Adams
2. Jefferson
3. Dinah Washington
4. Lincoln Kennedy
5. Grover Cleveland Alexander

On Altruism

al·tru·ism
–noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

(from http://dictionary.reference.com)

Altruism is the single most dangerous concept in politics.

The concept of altruism comes to us from religion. The great irony is that in no religion I am aware of does altruism ever get applied to government actions. Altruism is a personal commandment.

Yet somewhere in history, altruism was picked up by politicians as a means to sell their ideas. Don't think for a second that most politicians are truly displaying "unselfish concern for...the welfare of others".

When you hear altruism being given as the reason for a government program/action, be afraid. When government enters the realm of "unselfish concern for...the welfare of others", that means they are about to use force against one part of society in order to provide something for another part of society.

But taxes aren't "force", right? Wrong. Try not paying your taxes, and you will quickly learn about the force of government.

But what about the poor people? Folks, if you are truly concerned about the poor, donate to charity. If you know someone who is poor, help them. You won't get to Heaven any quicker by passing your personal altruistic responsibilities to the government.

But can't government help people? Sort of. But at what cost? When you pay government for a service, you are also paying for all kinds of government bureaucrats to make sure the service is provided, as well as accountable. Even then, government fails (Remember the debit cards handed out by FEMA after Hurricane Katrina? Remember the stories of them being used at strip clubs?).

If you want to be altruistic, do it on your own dime, not mine. And not the government's.

Pearls before Robert

Sunday's "Pearls before Swine" has Robert George written all over it:

Belated Happy President's Day!

Two important things to remember:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." - Abraham Lincoln

Friday Trivia! Valentine's Edition

For this week's Friday Trivia, I decided to go with a Valentine's Day theme. Have at it:

1. Which rock band from Seattle once did a cover of Kiki Dee's "I Got the Music in Me" on their LP titled Magazine?

2. What former Major League Baseball player and manager is currently managing a team in Japan's Pacific League?

3. Which recently discovered moon of Uranus was named after a character in Shakespeare's play Timon of Athens?

4. Which song from the Richard Rodgers/Lorenz Hart musical comedy Babes in Arms has been recorded by the following singers: Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Costello, Carly Simon, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Chaka Khan?

5. What was the name of the Houston franchise of the World Hockey Association (which existed from 1972-1979)?

Is marriage passé?

So I am reading this article about how there are more unmarried couples then married couples today (called "Look who’s happily unmarried" over at MSN.com), and the thought strikes me: The gay marriage movement is asking society to open a door to an empty room, a place where not even straight people go anymore.

"The recent report of a Census Bureau survey found that married-couple households in the U.S. are now outnumbered. A hair more than half — 50.3 percent — of households are headed by unmarried people, and 31.7 percent of American children are being raised in unmarried homes."

What does this say about marriage? Calling marriage obsolete is a bit too simplistic. It is still useful in specific circumstances, such as if your partner is unconscious and in the hospital and the doctors need someone to make a decision on treatment, or if only one partner has health insurance through their work. But some of these situations have been legislated out of existence in certain states, largely thanks to accommodations to the gay community.

In effect, by making life easier for gay, non-married couples, we have been undermining marriage.

What about divorce? No doubt stricter divorce laws have had an impact, but I suspect divorce in general has had an impact. How many of us have been through a bad divorce, or known more than a few couples who have been through a bad one? I would not be surprised if 90%+ of Americans can answer that question "yes". When we see the emotional and financial damage left from a nasty divorce, what incentive is there to get married? And for the children of these divorces, there is even less incentive.

Right now, unless you are in a situation with a partner where you will be required to be married under the law in order to receive a specific benefit, the only reason I can think of is income taxes. Is a thousand or so dollars per year in reduced income taxes worth getting married? (Mind you, I am throwing that figure out. I have not actually looked it up. I think it may actually be less than that.) Of course, that is assuming that being married would enable a couple to pay less, which is not often the case. Getting married is only really useful to the tax situation of a "one breadwinner" couple. If both couples work, and both make roughly the same amount, they are likely to push themselves into a higher tax bracket by filing jointly.

Yet again, we see marriage undermined.

What about religion? Most, if not all, religions consider marriage to be sacred. However, I am not aware of ANY religion that requires marriage to be state-sanctioned. If your religion requires you to be married, but your legal situation doesn't, why can't you ONLY be married within your religion? There is nothing legally or theologically making this invalid.

So why get legally married? We have dis-incentivized marriage to the point where it is really only useful in specific situations. Sadly, most of those situations don't apply to the majority of Americans.

At this point in time, I would say to anyone considering marriage (including homosexuals, if they have legal access to marriage) to look at their situation first. If they would actually benefit from it, I say go for it. However, if they can find a way around the marriage benefit (i.e. a properly executed will, or a legal power-of-attorney document), then I would suggest they do so. It is far easier to get legal documents changed than it is to get a divorce.

That having been said, how should we as a society view this? What do we think the purpose of marriage should be? Should we even be sanctioning the institution at all?

I must admit that I find the recent marriage "proposal" (pun intended) by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WDMA) to be intriguing. According to Initiative 957, which the group has proposed in the state of Washington:

"If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits."

While I recognize WDMA's true intent is to get gay marriage legalized, I find this proposal to be a useful starting point for any discussion of marriage. Why should states sanction marriage for the mere purpose of "love"? People will be in love regardless of marriage. Why do states need to encourage something which will happen anyway?

However, procreation is an extremely valid reason for states to provide benefits, although I think adoption should be considered as a reasonable substitute for procreation.

But until we give marriage a truly useful definition, for both couples and society as a whole, then it is nothing more than an obsolete institution which should be removed from government oversight.

Sorry folks

Sorry I didn't post yesterday, and I don't really have time for it today. I had some major plumbing problems at home, which kept me out of work. Now I have to play catch up.

I will try and resume normal posting tomorrow, but I make no promises. Worse comes to worse, I will have Friday Trivia again this week.

In Denial

Ellen Goodman is a moron. In her Boston Globe ediorial today, she nails the difference between "Holocaust denial" and "Global Warming denial", and then proceeds to walk right past it:

"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

There is no denying that Global Warming has occurred in the present, but at a very insignificant amount.

But how does the current Global Warming relate to the future? If we use the past as a guide, we can see that the Earth has gone through MANY warming AND cooling periods. How is the current Global Warming different than anything previously?

Contrary to what the environmental socialists would like to believe, THEY are the ones in denial, much like the Holocaust deniers. The Global Warming politicos are denying the historical evidence in order to promote their own cause through "end of the world" scare tactics. There is something going on, but it is NOT related to the climate.

Friday Trivia!

I am throwing out five questions that will cover a range of topics. It's Friday, so I know you aren't really working. First person to get all five correct in the comments wins...bragging rights (hey, I've got two kids. You weren't expecting money, were you?).

Have at it:

1. In baseball, who was the first American League player to make $100,000 per year?

2. What was the headline on the Chicago Daily Tribune on Wednesday, November 3, 1948?

3. Who sang "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" for the 1966 cartoon How the Grinch Stole Christmas!?

4. Which former U.S. president was in a train accident (which killed his 11 year old son) just 47 days prior to his inauguration?

5. What do the drug heroin and a group of jellyfish have in common?

ANSWERS:
1. Joe Dimaggio
2. "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"
3. Thurl Ravenscroft
4. Franklin Pierce
5. Both heroin and a group of jellyfish are referred to as "smack".

The Wheel of Global Warming

I ran across an interesting editorial by Pat Sajak, host of "Wheel of Fortune", titled "Is it Just Me, or Is it Warm in Here?". Admittedly, a game show host does not qualify as an expert in Global Warming, but he does make a good common sense point:

"Well, it's official. The Earth is warming up, and we're to blame. A United Nations panel of scientists has said it's more that 90% probable that human activities have caused most of the warming in the last 50 years. That's up from a 66% probability in a 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And way up from a 30-year-old warning of a coming Ice Age in Time Magazine. (Oops! That was right in the middle of our 50 years of man-made global warming.)

Anyway, the Time piece (June 24, 1974) reported, "The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." So, you see, we were also responsible for the global cooling even though, as it turned out, we were in the middle of global warming, although those wacky climatologists of the 1970s didn't notice.

...So I guess it's the logic (or lack of it) that gives me the greatest pause. On some level, I suppose, its comforting to think man has the power to turn the Earth's thermostat up and down at will. There's also the argument that we should take all steps deemed necessary by this [U.N.] panel "just in case". I say, let's wait a bit before dramatically adjusting our lives. After all, if we can switch from an impending Ice Age to catastrophic global warming in just 30 years, we should be able, with some effort, to drop the temperature a degree or two in pretty short order."

Of course, Sajak is being funny, but he has a valid point. Where does mankind get off thinking we can control the weather?

On a side note, think about this: If we were producing enough greenhouse gases to impact the climate of the entire planet, you would notice it in the air anywhere on the planet. Certainly air is "dirtier" in large cities and industrial areas. But if you go out in the country, or up on a mountain, or out on the ocean, how is the air? It seems pretty clean to me.

Let the Global Warming censorship begin!

Did you ever feel like you were living in the time right before the Salem Witch Trials? I am just wondering how long it will be before it becomes a crime to speak out against the absurd theory (and it is a theory, not a scientific fact) that mankind is causing Global Warming.

When scientists try to speak out against this absurdity, they get treated like an abortion doctor visiting a Baptist church. God forbid we should have an open public debate!

One example:

"“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” [George] Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of [Oregon's] "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint."

Can't have a scientist disagreeing with our politics, can we?

Thanks to an anonymous comment on my post from yesterday about Dr. Timothy Ball, who spoke out against this mankind-causing-Global Warming nonsense, I even have an example of blogging attacks on scientists, over at Desmogblog.com:

"The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.

But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field."

Of course, they don't challenge WHAT Ball is saying. They merely attack the messenger.

Even more interesting is how they claim he is unqualified to discuss climatology, since "his degree was in historical geography". I wonder if these morons ever stopped to consider: Climatology is a sub-science of Geography. But don't let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your crusade, right?

How about this little disturbing information from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (bold part added by me):

"YOU KNOW that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page "Summary for Policymakers," a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists' conclusions, but it wouldn't be the first time if it doesn't.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers' summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming."

I just hope America's Freedom of Speech can survive this lunacy. Otherwise, the Global Warming idiots may end up burning me at the stake.

Some Post-Super Bowl Thoughts

Now that the "big game" is over, time for a few ruminations on it:

MVP: If I could hand out an MVP award, I would give it to the Colts secondary. Maybe a co-MVP between Kelvin Hayden and Bob Sanders? If I have to choose only one player, then I give it to Bob Sanders, since he added a forced fumble to his interception.

If I had to choose an offensive MVP, I would take Dominic Rhodes, who had as many touchdowns as Peyton Manning (one), but no fumbles or interceptions (Manning had one of each). Add in 113 rushing yards, and Rhodes walks away with it.

REX GROSSMAN: Everyone's goat, for good reason. If the Bears start next season with Grossman under center, they are fools.

BEST COMMERCIAL: I liked the Doritos "Live the flavor" ad in the first quarter (link here).

HALL OF FAME SELECTIONS: How does Michael Irvin get in before Art Monk? They both played in three Super Bowls, but Monk did it with three different quarterbacks. Monk's career stats were better than Irvin's:

Art Monk: 940 catches, 12,721 yards, 68 touchdowns
Michael Irvin: 750 catches, 11,904 yards, 65 touchdowns

Just because Irvin toots his own horn louder doesn't mean he deserves it more.

An intelligent voice in the wilderness of ignorance

A climatologist speaking out AGAINST Global Warming? Strange but true, Dr. Timothy Ball has written an article against the hysteria:

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

As Dr. Ball goes on to explain:

"Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."

Be careful what you say Doc. You will have the enviro-whackos crying "Global Cooling" in a few years.

(Read the whole article over at Canadafreepress.com.)

Revenge of the Snow Weenies

Yesterday, I bashed northerners for being reckless in the snow. Today, it is time to give southerners their share of grief.

I live in Georgia. It snowed yesterday. My kids were off school. No problem.

Today, there are some trace amounts of snow left on the grass, but the roads are clear, although wet. While it is cold outside, the roads are NOT frozen. My kids are off school again today. Huh?

There is a fine line between being smart with snow, and just being a downright weenie with it. Southerners have mastered the art of snow weenieness (like that word?).

I imagine there is someplace around Virginia where they have just the right attitude towards snow. But go north of there, and the idiots are running the show. Go south of there, and the weenies are running the show.

It snowed!

It snowed here last night. Snow is one of nature's great wonders.

To look upon a freshly fallen snow is to observe peace. Sounds seem quieter with snow on the ground (until the kids find out it snowed, then it gets louder for awhile).

Snow provides a new perspective on the world. It is like God is saying, "Want to see what everything looks like in white?"

But for all of it's wonder, snow has a dark side. Mind you, I am not referring to the horrible blizzards people up north have seen, with houses buried under snow, people dying, etc. I am referring to driving on snow.

There are different textures of snow, and some are easier to drive on than others. But "easier" doesn't mean "floor it". It just means a light application of the brakes is less likely to cause you to spin out of control. Regardless of how safe the snow might be, it is best if you don't drive on it at all.

Which brings me to the difference between north and south.

In the south, we don't have much snow management equipment (such as plows and sanders). We have enough to clear the interstates, but that's all. Because of this, everything shuts down when it snows.

When I used to live in Delaware, the opposite was true. Because there was more snow equipment, it took about 6 inches of snow to really have an impact (4 inches if it fell quickly and fell first thing in the morning), and that was usually only the schools. At lesser amounts, you might see schools opening late, but it was still business as usual. Speaking of business, it took a snowfall of closer to a foot to close down businesses. If your car could move, you came to work. At best, they might open an hour or two late.

The real problem with snow is the back roads. In the south, they don't get plowed/sanded at all. In the north, they will get plowed/sanded later in the day, possibly even the next day or two if the storm is bad enough. Either way, the back roads aren't safe to travel on for the duration of the first day after the snow first falls.

(I can't speak for places much farther north than Delaware, since they undoubtedly get much more snow, and can keep chains on their tires for longer periods of the winter.)

But when back roads are bad, why would businesses be open? The usual excuse is "we can't close every time it snows. We'd go out of business." After many years of putting up with that by driving in the snow, first I decided to take sick days when it snowed. Next, I moved south.

If you nuts want to drive in that crap, go ahead. Just don't ask me to risk my life or my car for your "business".