The point has been made over and over again, and I'm sure I don't need to mention it on this blog, but I'll do it anyway.

It's ironic that some people who are criticizing the school for its response to the initial shootings this morning are the same people who will be calling for tighter gun control in the future.

If we learned anything from Katrina, it's the same thing we learned again today:

You cannot rely on the government to protect you from every harm!

In a land where the citizenry is unarmed, the government is the only thing that stands between a criminal and his victim. Thus, the one thing these types of shooters know is that all they need to do is outsmart the government in order to accomplish their evil.

Government, specifically the police, do certain things well, but preventing random acts of violence is not one of them. They can only respond after the fact. And the difference between that first 911 call and the arrival of SWAT (usually after the shooter has killed himself) today was measured in 32 innocent lives.

So when people ask "why didn't the school officials shut down the school right away?" the answer is, "well, I guess they fucked up." (Even though on a campus the size of Virginia Tech, I'm not sure that was practical, or that it would have even prevented the tragedy. Who's to say he wouldn't have found some other populated place to go on his rampage?)

Yes, government fucks up sometimes. Recognize this reality. Embrace it. Own it. Because the sooner we realize that government cannot gaurantee our safety, the sooner we'll stop willingly handing away our right to protect ourselves.

More: KG at Crusader Rabbit has a partial list of recent school shootings worldwide. And John Hawkins correctly identifies the deadliest school mass murder in U.S. history, the 1927 Bath School bombing.

Still more: I wonder if anyone in the MSM will contact VT grad student Bradford B. Wiles, just to see if his opinion has changed any by the events of today. My guess would be no on both counts.

Mr. Giles wrote the following in an op-ed published last August, after he had been evacuated from a campus building in the previous on-campus incident.

I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.

First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.

Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.

Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.

h/t Dymphna at Gates of Vienna

Update: Anti-American AP reports the following:

Two law enforcement officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced, said Cho's fingerprints were found on the guns used in both shootings. The serial numbers on the two weapons had been filed off, the officials said.

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol.

Must-read: Publicola deconstructs the incident in his inimitable way.

[I]t has been preached from every rooftop of every school that resistance is bad. We even had a politician proposing using books as bullet proof shields as a solution to school violence. Not too long ago a teacher in Texas was "re-assigned" because he dared teach his students to fight back even if unarmed. For a number of reasons political & cultural we simply do not on the whole wish to face the idea that violence is an acceptable option in any situation.

That, & not the school's reaction (or lack thereof) contributed to the deaths & injuries at VT. [links omitted]

Posted by: annika at 09:27 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 943 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Bingo. Just changed a few minds at my office as we were all watching the headlines on the cafeteria TV... I muttered, "imagine if just two students in that classroom were carrying..."

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 17, 2007 06:44 AM (dLe9c)

2 Sean Connery and I approve Annika's message.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2007 06:53 AM (fO04l)

3 Ex law enforcement officer - forgot if he was FBI or some other branch - was being interviewed on MSNBC yesterday. I was going nuts when the reporter was asking some really dumb questions ('How fast can this (reloading of a pistol) happen?' 'Well, we trained our agents to reload within a couple of seconds, it's possible for anyone to reload a gun quickly...' (note: paraphrase; I don't have the transcript in front of me))... but then the reporter opened the question up to the idea of gun control, and the man came out and clearly stated that his experience taught him that gun control laws only keep weapons out of law abiding citizens hands (I remember he came out and said "I'm for lawful gun ownership", and the context was clear that he didn't mean for hunting or target shooting at a range). He went on about how his experience, talking about how only lawful people turned in guns in gun buyback programs, and how criminals were the first to ignore those programs. In the end, it turned out to be a great interview. And even better, when the ex-officer/agent said what he did, the interviewer didn't try to steer him away from his claims. She kept the normal gun control rhetoric out of it, which is something I haven't seen for a long, long time.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 17, 2007 07:00 AM (xHyDY)

4 They just announced that the shooter was a South Korean on a student visa studying English. Oh man, do I know this story. ROK's coming to the states to study English are usually on a year long party. Then they have to go home, and explain why they don't know how to speak English. Can't wait to hear Kevin's side of this.

Posted by: Casca at April 17, 2007 07:03 AM (Y7t14)

5 I didn't know the 2nd Amendment applied to non-citizens either.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 17, 2007 07:47 AM (fO04l)

6 "(Even though on a campus the size of Virginia Tech, I'm not sure that was practical, or that it would have even prevented the tragedy. Who's to say he wouldn't have found some other populated place to go on his rampage?)" The university administration has blood on its hands. After the initial shootings around 7AM, the university was well aware that an armed man who had just committed two murders was still at large. And their solution was a mass e-mail. True, perhaps shutting down the campus would have achieved little or nothing, but to have left everything functioning as normal seemed like the concern was more on P.R. and less the safety of VT students.

Posted by: Mark at April 17, 2007 08:01 AM (2MrBP)

7 I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that either way. It looks like they had reason to believe that the first shootings related to a "domestic" dispute. Would you say that the police were negligent if they didn't shut down scores of blocks or an entire city every time a guy shoots his girlfriend (or vice versa) in a private house? You could argue, however, that the university assumed total responsibility for student safety because it closed off avenues of self-protection (no carrying) and purported to provide a safe environment for the members of the school community (lame security guards? Tech police?). I'm not sure if I buy that either, though.

Posted by: taxlawmax at April 17, 2007 08:09 AM (dLe9c)

8 Casca, I'm about to head off to bed (13-hour difference between Seoul and DC), but I can say this: an email from a friend of mine said that one Korean anchor's reaction to the killings was to say something like, "We hope this doesn't lead to racism." In other words, the ethnic/national angle is more important than the brute fact that thirty-two people were slaughtered. No "our hearts go out to the victims," no "we are all Americans now," but "uh-oh, they gonna be hatin' on Koreans." I conjectured to a friend that Korean Netizen chatter will include some "those fucking Americans deserved this" remarks from the Kornazi end of the spectrum. Such remarks won't represent the majority opinion, but they won't be a tiny minority, either. There will be a lot more such histrionic navel-gazing in the Korean media in the days to come as questions about "face" and "race" will surface. (Not that such questions are ever far from the surface in a society like South Korea's.) Be sure to check out places like The Marmot's Hole (this post in particular) for up-to-the-minute blogging on this and other Korean issues. Those guys never sleep, and their comments sections are pretty wild. The place gets over 2000 unique visits a day, so you know how it is. Kevin PS: Don't be shy about checking my blog on occasion, too, though to be honest, I'm about blogged out on this. For now, anyway. PPS: The guy was a Korean national, but has been living in the States since he was 3. I guess this means his note (the contents of which I'd like to know) was likely in English. Burn in hell, Cho.

Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 17, 2007 09:10 AM (1PcL3)

9 I love Korea, the people and the culture, and I couldn't say that about any other country in Asia. Cho won't change that. Pass the kimchae my brutha.

Posted by: Casca at April 17, 2007 09:24 AM (Y7t14)

10 Brilliant post, Annika! Rush is doing a magnificent job breaking this event down this morning from the perspective of how the MSM/Left - after all, they are really part of the same entity - is trying to politicize a single event by a crazed, evil lunatic, attempting to treat it as a microcosm of America. As we should have expected, some Lefty nutter in the House is already blaming, you guessed it, Bush. Between the MSM's handling and the Left's reaction to Duke, Imus, and VT, it is becoming even more obvious how far these people will go to politicize any event, using whatever ready-to-use template is available. Can't wait to hear Rosie's take on this.....

Posted by: blu at April 17, 2007 09:42 AM (pXoDI)

11 It was a domestic dispute; he was in her place at 7:15 A.M.; what does that tell us? Then, he went home and picked up the other artillery and ammo. He set out to deal with her, (maybe with her and the guy he blew away) but changed his plan after he killed them. So, why are the idiots calling for resignations for the Chief of Police and the President of VT? HOw far will this Imus crap go? Damn, why not blame the girl for blowing him off? Does anybody ever think that the perp is the bad guy anymore???

Posted by: shelly at April 17, 2007 11:32 AM (h/YdH)

12 No one's discussing the obvious solution - if you eliminate students from the universities, you won't have these problems. There's one parallel between Virginia Tech and 9/11. In both cases, a horrible event occurred, and no one (or very few people) conceived that the terrible event could occur a second time. The strategy of multiple nearly-simultaneous attacks, whether performed by a lone gunman or by an organization, has become very deadly. Yet are we now obligated to assume that this will always occur? I don't think so.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at April 17, 2007 12:02 PM (xJ+oA)

13 good point Shelly. i tend to doubt that the dude was there so early because he had spent the night. From everything i've heard today about him, he seems like too much of a loser. i think he probably went there early to catch the girl with her guy. and the fact that he bought so many extra clips tends to indicate premeditation for the mass killing later. it was all planned.

Posted by: annika at April 17, 2007 01:55 PM (zAOEU)

14 Notice the "alleged" shooter is from C(r)apitalist South Korea and "supposedly" perpetrated this horror in Adoph Chimpler's C(r)apitalist America. Do you ever see North Koreans perpetrating atrocities like this? This PROVES Socialism is SUPERIOR!

Posted by: isitstinky at April 18, 2007 02:17 PM (xVizk)

15 Straw, Are you posting under a different name?

Posted by: Blu at April 18, 2007 03:58 PM (pXoDI)

16 For once, I agree with you. I guess I am not a liberal who is anti-gun.

Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2007 01:23 AM (xr6Q4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What do you think? Will the Don Imus auto da fe, recently concluded, have the unintended result of making it easier to execute Rosie O'Donald when she makes her inevitable next outrageous statement?

In other words, is the threshold of firable offenses now so low that Rosie will no longer be able to get away with the shit she's been pulling for months on The View?

Or does the Imus controversy have no relevance to Rosie, since the culturally designated Torquemadas, Sharpton and Jackson, are unlikely to be offended by anything Rosie might say?

Posted by: annika at 04:32 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're like me, who waits impatiently for each great essay by Bill Whittle to come out, wait no more. The newest one is up! In it, Bill hits upon the motivation I've always suspected was the driving force behind the popularity of conspiracy theories: self-esteem. Or rather, the lack of it.

[M]ost normal people do not look at life from within a pit of failure and despair. Our lives are measured by small successes -- like raising children, serving in the military, doing volunteer work at your church – or just doing the right thing in a thousand small but important ways, like returning money if someone makes you too much change.

These are simply the small, ordinary milestones of a life of value. They give you a sense of identity.

But if I didn’t have that sense of identity rooted in my own small achievements, I wonder how likely it would have been for me to grab onto that sense of sudden empowerment, of being an initiate in some arcane club of hidden wisdom. I wonder what might have happened to me if being the Holder of Secret Knowledge had been my only source of self-esteem…the one redeeming landmark in a life of isolation and failure. Indeed, I wonder what power such a worldview would have over me if I could believe that behind the scenes lurked vast and unknowable dark forces – forces that could topple a president and perhaps even explain why a person of my deep, vast and bountiful talents was not doing a whole lot better in life?

To paraphrase Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller, "and where did you do your hard hitting data research... in your ass?"

Posted by: annika at 07:07 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Now that the Duke Lacrosse thing is over, I think it's an appropriate time to review what did not happen in Durham. So here's Mary Katharine Ham to remind us, in a video she did way back in December.

Posted by: annika at 03:35 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll on the Iraq War contains a real surprise, which might explain why nobody is reporting it. The poll is dated April 5th through April 9th. The key question is this:

Generally speaking, do you think setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq hurts or helps U.S. troops serving in Iraq right now, or doesn't it affect the troops one way or the other?

Hurts: 50%
Helps: 27%
No Effect: 15%
Unsure: 8%

So much for Americans supporting the troops, if you believe the poll.

Predictably, the only news story I found on Google that even mentions the poll is selective in its coverage — i.e. they're incredibly biased. Here's the link. As of this writing, E&P completely failed to mention the first question I highlighted above, instead focusing on the second question. That's not just biased reporting, it's fucking propaganda.

Posted by: annika at 12:00 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

I have a somewhat different take on the whole Imus debacle. I've always thought he was totally overrated and I never understood his appeal or influence. Happily, living in California, I don't have to listen to him.

However, I think the huge uproar surrounding Imus's recent unfunny racial jokes, his subsequent apologies, public bitchslapping and two week suspension have shown us just how far we've come as a society that is unwilling to tolerate such insensitivity.

It is right and just that Imus be brought low, a-hole that he is.

I also firmly believe that this controversy has brought us closer to that glorious day, which will occur soon and possibly within our lifetimes, when no one will ever be insulted ever again. By anyone. At any time. In any way.

Hallelujah!

Update: It's official. Wikipedia now refers to "Imus in the Morning" in the past tense.

Posted by: annika at 05:47 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Captain Ed asks the rhetorical question on a lot of conservatives' lips these days:

[H]ow can we expect these [Democrat] candidates to face off against America's enemies when they can't bring themselves to face Fox?

Posted by: annika at 08:49 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's Kiki Couric on today's anniversary of the American entry into World War I.

Did you catch that?

Listening between the lines, Kiki's message is this: If not for advances in modern medicine, over 413,000 Americans would have died fighting the Iraq war.

Am I reading too much into it? If it was anybody else, I might be, but this is the anti-American CBS News.

Posted by: annika at 06:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

1 What she meant to say was "If it were not for the aliens and their mind control device, I would be a pushy soccor mom, getting into a pissing match with another hausfrau at the Peoria PTA."

Posted by: kyle N at April 06, 2007 07:10 PM (7k0iG)

2 The video is no longer available! Conspiracy!!!!

Posted by: Otto at April 06, 2007 08:27 PM (czVLs)

3 There are few members of the media that make me cringe with revulsion more than Ms. Katie Couric. She could be reading "Green Eggs and Ham" -- it wouldn't matter.

Posted by: Mark at April 06, 2007 10:31 PM (viPPu)

4 Jeez, she reads like the smart bitch in a high school English class. Since when was the "A" in fatalities long? On the upside, I just got off the phone with Casca II. He called on the satphone from a wadi in the western desert. It was good to hear his voice. Technology is great!

Posted by: Casca at April 06, 2007 11:44 PM (2gORp)

5 If he's really your son, it would be Casca, Jr. Small distinction, but worth mentioning. Please give him my thanks, and those of all of us, (except that fool who keeps butting in), for being there and defending us all, even the fool.

Posted by: shelly at April 07, 2007 05:39 AM (4hKsD)

6 I second Shelly's motion. I hope him and his comrades remain safe for the duration of their stay.

Posted by: reagan80 at April 07, 2007 07:49 AM (I0gpu)

7 Lol, well since he's about five inches taller than me, I've always suspected his mother's fidelity. The rub is that his mind works a lot like my own. In any case, since I'm not a legalistic sort, I'll continue to call him any damn thing I want. It was an interesting conversation. We talked tactics a bit. I asked him about his ability to displace, so as not to become a fixed target, and to emphasize the need to be thinking about that, and he replied, "I've got very little else to think about, and all day to think about it." LOL He's on a grand adventure, and he knows it. Any man worth his salt would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I'll pass on your good wishes.

Posted by: Casca at April 07, 2007 08:16 AM (2gORp)

8 Kasca, Despite what you or Shelly may think I wish him a safe return. I may not agree that he is defending me or you from a real threat or that his commander in chief is competent but he is a soldier and doing his job takes courage and committment.

Posted by: strawman at April 07, 2007 12:27 PM (9ySL4)

9 Oozing infected cunt drippings: see above: Straw - you didn't tell me you got married!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 02:18 AM (32BJr)

10 Special thanks to you and your son Casca.

Posted by: Mike C. at April 08, 2007 05:30 AM (2nDll)

11 Hey Red, DOn't worry, after we get move in proper and all and the kid comes we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach.

Posted by: strawman at April 08, 2007 09:57 AM (9ySL4)

12 Straw is especially bitter on Easter because the Jew came back. Good Friday is the ultimate liberal blueballing!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 01:42 PM (G0EXJ)

13 we'll get you a nice new leather collar and a life coach. What the fuck is a life coach? Is that some kind of PC government makework job to inculcate loathing of America, heteros and self? I'm surrounded by a zillion of those every day and it hasn't yet, nor will it ever work. Speaking of weddings Straw, when is your Daddy #1 going to make an honest man out of Daddy #2?

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 08, 2007 05:29 PM (cOyko)

14 Thank you to your son, Casca. My son-in-law just got back from 14 months in Iraq. We owe them and their families a huge debt.

Posted by: MarkD at April 09, 2007 05:42 AM (5vbH6)

15 Thanks Mark. Whew, fourteen months, that's brutal.

Posted by: Casca at April 09, 2007 06:28 AM (Y7t14)

16 Red, It is, if Hillary is elected, going to be a new cabinet level position; Secretary of Life, right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace. They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard so you may have a job opportunity with medical bene's

Posted by: strawman at April 09, 2007 06:35 AM (9ySL4)

17 Seconds and Amen's to everyone's hopes for your son's safety, Cas. BTW, is he a Marine, or is he army? Figured the overbearing influence of his paterfamilias might predispose him to life as a leatherneck, but then again, maybe he's all about blazing his own path and needling his old man about it. 'Specially given that dig 'bout his mom ("Yeah, pop, but funny thing is, I'm the same height as the mailman..."). Hehe... All kidding aside, kudos and blessings to him and his immediate leadership, who I'm certain are equal to the task of leading fine young soldiers and Marines.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at April 09, 2007 10:10 AM (xHyDY)

18 They may need an ugly mutt to pace in the front yard No thanks. Either of your wives (from the picture above) are more than qualified. right down the hall from the office of the Secretary of Peace. Got news for you genius - there already is a Secretary of Peace. It's called the Secretary of Defense, or the War Department. Your desperate wet dream of a weak, surrendering and defeatist America will never happen.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 09, 2007 01:04 PM (fWJN4)

19 El, We're coming up on the 25th anniversary of his mother deficating him upon a table in the delivery room at Camp Pendleton. Nine months earlier, the deed having been committed at Quantico, MCB. It truly was in his blood. I tried to wave him off, but we're from a line strong with the need to burn our own fingers.

Posted by: Casca at April 10, 2007 06:49 AM (Y7t14)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am in complete agreement with Jim Geraghty on the Pelosi head-scarf non-controversy.

I enjoy whacking around Nancy Pelosi as much as the next guy, but as far as I can tell, the photos of her in a headscarf are all of her while visiting a mosque. . . . There are a million and one reasons to object to Pelosi, but wearing the headscarf while in the mosque isn't one of them. It's akin to dressing appropriately while visiting a church, or a man wearing a yarmulke in a synagogue. It's something you do when you're a guest. It's not submission, it's respect.

Posted by: annika at 09:38 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

When I heard crazy Rosie O'Donald shooting off her ignorant bullshit about WTC Building 7, I was reminded of my trip to Ground Zero in July 2003.

As my friend and I walked around the site, we saw a guy standing next to a sign with a bunch of literature. He kept talking about how the WTC was really made up of seven buildings, not just the towers. I thought, "How nice, he's not political at all, he just wants to give people a little history while they tour the site." He kept repeating the exact times that the buildings came down with special emphasis on Building 7. I thought that was odd, but it wasn't until recently that I remembered him and realized that he was a friggin Truther, defiling the scene with his craziness.

On the video I shot, you can't really see him until the very end. In the last frame, I think he's to the right of center, half hidden behind the dude in the white shirt.

Posted by: annika at 08:43 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

I suppose we should all be happy that the crisis over the kidnapped Royal Marines looks like it's coming to a peaceful end. But something doesn't feel right about the way this thing has turned out.

I mean, Britain was patrolling the Gulf for a reason, right? And whether the Marines were kidnapped outside of Iranian waters or inside, the Iranians have quite forcefully demonstrated their power to win a showdown, anytime, anywhere.

The British could have won this confrontation, gaining the marines' release, without showing the world what a bunch of groveling patsies they've become. But instead, they've given the world another reason for a false hope: that you can deal with the Iranians as long as you avoid making them mad.

And don't think I'm letting President Bush off lightly in my scorn. Sure he talked tough while it was the Brits in captivity. But this administration has done nothing except pusue diplomatic impotence, while the Iranians built more centrifuges, and yanked our chains. Where is the Iranian Lech Walensa? Where is the Iranian Solidarity movement? Does anyone think the Iron Curtain fell on its own? We pushed it over. Reagan pushed it over. The means he used weren't always open and obvious, but by this time in Reagan's second term, we could see the effects. I've been hearing about Iranian dissidents and how sick the people are of the mullahs for years now. If that's so true, we should be seeing some actual dissent over there, demonstrations, labor strikes. Again I ask, where are President Bush and Secretary Rice on this issue?

Great Britain just made the likelihood of eventual military confrontation between Iran and the West more likely. What are we doing to prevent it by toppling the dictatorship before that happens?

Update: A comment by Cruiser at The Belmont Club made the following very cogent point:

We always hear that acting aggressively towards Iran shores-up the hardliners. This is an good example of why the opposite can be true.

Update 2: In 2005, after the London bombings, I asked, "Where is this Britiain?" I'm now sure of the answer. It no longer exists. Blair has made a mockery of James Thomson's stirring poem, and it should never be sung again, except in sarcasm.

Yes the Britain of Lord Nelson is dead. And so is the Britain of Lord Churchill who, in 1940, said:

[B]e the ordeal sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley; we may show mercy—we shall ask for none.

Posted by: annika at 09:11 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

John McCain just lost his first primary this season: the "fundraising primary."

Sen. John McCain today announced a disappointing $12.5 million fundraising total for the first three months of 2007.

The total, which would have been impressive in past election cycles, finds McCain trailing GOP rivals Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani in the crucial early money sweepstakes.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who has struggled in the national polls, reported $23 million in primary election contributions, including more than $2 million of his own money. The Federal Election Commission allows candidates to collect money for their primary and general election campaigns simultaneously.

Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner in national surveys, took in more than $15 million in primary cash, including more than $10 million last month. He also transferred about $2 million from another campaign account for a total of $17 million.

Memo to Senator McCain: The mainstream media is not a constituency. You pissed off the wrong people with your Gang of 14 - anti-free speech - dumbing down the definition of "torture" - Democrats are people too, views. Money flows to candidates that can win the nomination. You can't win. It's time to leave the field to Giuliani and Romney and stop sucking up attention that should be going to the legitimate candidates.

Posted by: annika at 01:28 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Here are two key quotes from today's Victor Davis Hanson column at NRO.

Confrontation can be avoided through capitulation, and no Western nation is willing to insist that Iran adhere to any norms of behavior.

. . .

Why put European ships or planes outside of European territorial waters when that will only guarantee a crisis in which Europeans are kidnapped and held as hostages or used as bargaining chips to force political concessions?

Royal Marines don't apologize. Not willingly. But so what? They don't need to, eventually their government apologizes for them.

What we need here is not "de-escalation" rhetoric. The Iranians are playing the same hand they played in '79, because they know it works. Somebody needs to look them in the eye and say "not this time." But nobody is willing to do it. And so if nobody has the guts, why bother pretending? They should all just go home.

Posted by: annika at 10:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Who knows if this story is true? The source is two former Democratic lawmakers, who say that McCain's chief of staff approached them in 2001 about McCain switching parties. The chief of staff denies it, although he's now a Democrat himself, which is bad enough for McCain. Of course in these types of things, it doesn't really matter if the story is true, all that matters is that the story is out there, and it fits the narrative.

McCain may be done.

My prediction for the next big Republican drama: H. Ross Thompson. Will he or won't he? (Fuck everything up, that is.)

Posted by: annika at 03:29 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it racist for a liberal to say "I like Obama, but I'm supporting Hillary because America's not ready to elect a black president?"*

Whether or not it's racist, that kind of attitude betrays a characteristic pessimism and contempt for America that many liberals hold but won't admit. The psychological term is called "projection," where a person attributes oneÂ’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and emotions onto another. Liberals are famous for projecting their own faults, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few closet racists in the Democratic party.

I know it's early, but Hillary still isn't beating Giuliani in head-to-head matchups, and I can't understand why Obama isn't gaining traction with Democrats. In almost every aspect, he's a better candidate for the liberals. Consistent on the war (despite the latest Clinton lie, he never flip-flopped), more likeable, a better speaker, less political baggage, got more integrity, etc., etc. And because he's from a new generation, nominating Obama over Hillary represents a step forward, not a step back.

Plus, if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I think Obama is the tougher matchup. Let's look at the polling.

The RealClearPolitics average has Obama losing to Giuliani by only 2.2%, whereas Queen Hillary loses to the Mayor by 4.5%. Those numbers seem close, but remember they're averages of about 4 or 5 different polls. The key is that Obama wins two of the five polls averaged in the Giuliani/Obama matchup, with Giuliani winning the other three. By contrast all four polls in the hypothetical Giuliani/Clinton matchup swing for Giuliani.

Both Hillary and Obama run neck-and-neck against McCain, but I'd give Obama the edge. RealClearPolitics has Obama beating John McCain by 1%, while Hillary loses to McCain by 1.6%. I know, I know, margin of error. But in McCain vs. Obama, McCain has the same problems as Hillary. There's a large swath of people who will never vote for the man (myself included), and his generation represents a step back, not forward.

In other matchups, while Clinton beats Romney convincingly, Obama beats Romney going away. Obama's average lead over Romney is almost 20%, and is 7.1 points higher than Hillary's lead. Actually, even John Edwards polls better against Romney than Hillary does. There's no chance that Romney could ever beat any Democrat in the general election.

Things are changing on the Democratic side, however. In the west and the south, Obama has apparently pulled dead even with Hillary. She still retains a two to one lead in the northeast. With the new über-Tuesday election giving more weight to the big states, it's going to be anybody's race, especially if Obama can take California. Even though I'm voting Republican, I'd so love to see Obama beat Hillary. I hate coronations.
_______________

* I realize I'm vulnerable to the same criticism, since I have always scoffed at the Romney candidacy. But the reason I don't think Romney can win is not because he's a Mormon. It's because he's a nobody, he looks plastic, and the country is in the middle of an anti-conservative backlash right now. Romney's been marketed as the conservative's conservative, and that's not going to go over well in the general. By contrast, Giuliani has crossover appeal because he's the anti-conservative conservative. His liberal social views make him more acceptable to the average general election voter, who fancies him or herself more "tolerant" than the typical primary voter.

Posted by: annika at 11:07 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I am on record as having said, a long time ago, that I do not believe Hilary could ever be elected president. I stand by that. Presidential candidates, when it gets close to election time, are scrutinized very closely by that part of the public who normally are not very political. And they are the swing voters. They will never vote for such a shrill woman.

Posted by: kyle N at March 24, 2007 02:25 PM (b3yka)

2 It's even hard to watch a spoof of her>

Posted by: annika at March 24, 2007 02:38 PM (WfR6S)

3 It's TSTT, too soon to tell. That's why we have campaigns. The Clintonistas own the levers of power in the D party. O'bama will be the VP candidate if he plays nice. He'll be stupid if he doesn't take that deal, since he probably isn't in a position to win reelection in Illinois against a real candidate. The Clintons should both be getting out of prison about now. Instead, they're in position to move back into the White House to steal more furniture. It's a mistake to dismiss them, no matter how venal and grating they may be to the sensibilities of anyone who has their eyes open.

Posted by: Casca at March 24, 2007 03:15 PM (2gORp)

4 As one who has been married many times, I have to say I like the idea of a Giuliani White House where the president and the First Lady each have two ex-spouses. And I still believe John Edwards is the most electable of all three major candidates on the Democratic side. He'll team up with Bill Richardson as his Veep; Giuliani can pick up Mike Huckabee, and it'll be a very interesting battle.

Posted by: Hugo at March 24, 2007 04:09 PM (ApisT)

5 Giuliani does have crossover appeal. Maybe I'm projecting - b/c I calmly accept that no candidate will ever agree with every one of my own beliefs - but I don't think conservatives will stay away from voting for Giuliani, assuming he is the Repub nominee. There are lots of issues, and conservative voters are accustomed to their candidates disagreeing with them on some issues. Giuliani will be no different. I hear one liberal commenter after another proclaim that conservatives will not vote for Giuliani. I think they are scamming, and/or projecting their own rigidity. They have zero self knowledge. They cannot see it is them who are truly the rigid voters. They cannot see it is them who would vote their abortion views above all else. Every time they scornfully denounce some perception they have about "the religious right", they are opening a window for us to look inside them. I still love Giuliani. But, I would have to look hard at Fred Thompson also. Things are awfully entertaining for March, 2007.

Posted by: gcotharn at March 24, 2007 05:36 PM (n+fl+)

6 Giuliani with Gingrich could beat anyone the Dem's throw at them. Can it happen? I don't think so, bu5 I'd go to the wall for that slate.

Posted by: shelly at March 24, 2007 10:59 PM (JQe3J)

7 Giuliani Gingrich would be a great ticket. But anybody who thinks Thompson is the savior is dreaming. Sure, he's a solid conservative, but he can't beat Hillary.

Posted by: annika at March 26, 2007 02:19 PM (zAOEU)

8 Fred Thompson is like the back up QB, he is always the fan's favorite, until he gets on the field.

Posted by: kyle N at March 26, 2007 04:11 PM (frqsE)

9 I'm "anyone", and I'm dreaming of Fred Thompson kicking Hillary's ass. Fred has charisma, and he looks at many issues exactly as I do. Buuuut, what do I know? I liked George Allen, I like Mitt Romney, and I think Duncan Hunter might someday be me President.

Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:39 PM (n+fl+)

10 my President

Posted by: gcotharn at March 26, 2007 05:40 PM (n+fl+)

11 Duncan is an honest to goodness white knight. On the downside, he's from a solid R district, and one doesn't learn political skills running against weak opposition. Sadly, it shows.

Posted by: Casca at March 26, 2007 06:23 PM (2gORp)

12 How about Giuliani and Thompson? I am on record as thinking Giuliani will be the next President, but I haven't really come up with a good VP candidate for him. Thompson would be a good choice in many ways--As a southern Conservative he balances the ticket geographically, and would reassure those Republicans who are worried about Giuliani's social views, he is a serious individual who is respected on both sides of the political divide, etc. Personally, I think a Giuliani-Thompson ticket would be very difficult for the Democrats to counter. OTOH, I wonder if Thompson is serious about running for President, much less willing to consider the second spot, and he has a few stumbling blocks in his past, too.

Posted by: DBrooks at March 26, 2007 08:01 PM (VA3Jg)

13 It is time for Barack to implode. The articles calling attention to his lies in his Selma speech are the beginning of the end. The Clintons are getting ready to bury him; there will not be enough left of him to get him reelected back to the Senate. Mark my words; Bronco Bomber is done. Put a fork in him.

Posted by: AntonioVdeLA at March 27, 2007 03:28 AM (JQe3J)

14 Can someone explain to me how Giuliani is a "conservative"?

Posted by: Mark at March 27, 2007 12:12 PM (2MrBP)

15 Mark, He's not. He is a law and order democrat who supports a womenÂ’s right to choose, gun control because protecting cops is more important to him than some vaporous and childish idea about a "right" to bare arms and he will impose fiscal responsibility unlike spend the spend thrift conservatives. He will, I feel, retreat from the pointless non-war on terror in Iraq and maybe make stabilizing Afghanistan a priority. Nor is he a religious man and the lobbying efforts of the christo-fascist segment of our populace will fall on deaf ears. No ten commandments in his courtrooms, and a great deal of other religious bullshit that permeates our current whorehouse of a Whitehouse. Rudy will not withhold money from clinics that don't preach abstinence, will spend on stem cell research because he doesnÂ’t suffer from that brain lock about protected life beginning at first division of cells. In other words he is neither frightening nor an insult to reasonable people. I received a fund raising letter on behalf of Rudy the other day from a friend who supports him. A wealthy, liberal, NY Jewish lawyer (Doc PomusÂ’s brother) who like most people I know has nothing but distain for the Republican Party and the Imperial Chimp but who is a good friend of RudyÂ’s and thinks highly of him. So I don't know what you are all wishing for? I would not be happy if he won but neither would I be a tenth as appalled and embarrassed as I am now with this ignorant and inept son of a bitch whose administrationÂ’s biggest challenge, and one that they blow every time, seems to be keeping their lies straight. Goodbye Speedy G.

Posted by: strawman at March 27, 2007 01:02 PM (9ySL4)

16 I will never give up my right to "bare" arms...

Posted by: gcotharn at March 27, 2007 06:22 PM (n+fl+)

17 goth, Skin cancer, don't forget is not protected by the constutition.

Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 01:05 PM (9ySL4)

18 straw, It's takes real talent to insert falsehoods, distortions, half truths, or angry insults into every sentence. I guess this is the "tolerance" and "compassion" I keep hearing about. Anyone who still resorts to this mindless "right to choose" slogan without admitting that it's an utterly dishonest and thinly veiled euphemism has not thought much about the topic. Ironically, those who elevate choice into a sacrament are strongly against choice in other matters. Regarding gun control, COPS SUPPORT the right to BEAR arms. Where gun control is weak, crime tends to be low. Where gun control is oppressive (D.C. and Chicago) crime is high. (See John Lott from University of Chicago who has proven this in two books. See also, "Law of Unintended Consequences.") To call the Invasion in Iraq a "pointless non-war" could only come from someone who has not followed the Invasion since Day 1 with any honesty or consistency. Despite the many problems (inherent in all wars, by the way) much has also been accomplished. Regarding stem cell research, Republicans support ADULT stem cell research, which have merely resulted in 72 (or more) treatments, cures, etc. Embryonic stem cells? NOTHING, NADA, ZERO. Have you pondered WHY researchers in embryonic stem cells are begging at the public trough? Because the private sector (investors) knows what you don't: embryonic stem cells are fraught with valid moral problems and are a scientic failure. When you're not making uninformed comments, you drop rather vicious insults. Your mother must be proud. I fail to understand what you get from regularly polluting this blog with misinformation and very little independent thought and research. Perhaps you take great pleasure in making consistently invalid, incomplete, illogical statements. If so, you must be approaching orgasm.

Posted by: Mark at March 28, 2007 01:59 PM (2MrBP)

19 Annika, I would support this whole post, except I'm not ready to suppport the views of a woman. I don't feel America is yet ready. Otherwise I would say that this was a good post.

Posted by: RightWingDuck at March 28, 2007 02:43 PM (pl1ju)

20 Good one Mark, but it is the custom here to ignore the fulsome strawfuck. RWD, it's always good to meet a brother in the He-Man-Woman-Haters Club.

Posted by: Casca at March 28, 2007 04:24 PM (2gORp)

21 Mark, You have not heard about tolerance and compassion from me for those who don’t need it The people of Iraq need some but not fools sitting by their keyboards all over this country blowing smoke up each others asses. They need a blow to the side of their heads so the crap can seep out their ears. The world is spinning out of America’s control as the huge populations of China and India are developing a consumer class and we have nothing to sell them. Our influence is diminishing as any bully’s does because a stick is only emblematic of his lack of imagination. “To a man whose only tool is a hammer all problems look like nails” The current and many past administrations have been hobbled by their reliance on the paucity of tools they are willing to bring to bear on the problems we and the world face. We are acting scared and have created a policy out of fear. Grabbing Iraq was the policy of a cabal that feared for the demise of America, saw an opportunity to insert our influence in a part of the world we think is vital to our continued growth and they completely fucked it up. Iraq is now a corrosive canister threatening to explode and spatter its tainted innards around the region and cause deeper and more profound wounds than the WTC and we refuse to open our fist and let go or to at least look for alternate solutions. Please do not pitch the superior morals crap. You are comfortable watching Iraq dissolve in a pool of blood and tissue at the hands of our military and the Iraqi people yet you insist a woman be compelled against her will to gestate a child because you think not doing so is a trespass against god. What a bull shitter. What do you say to your god on Sundays when He asks you what part don’t you understand of his admonitions about killing and his other clear messages? Pick the ones you like, shuck and jive around the others. Oh, Mark, please stop thinking about my orgasms, it's gross, man.

Posted by: strawman at March 28, 2007 07:04 PM (9ySL4)

22 Casca's right; sooner or later the attention whore will go ply some other street...

Posted by: shellly at March 28, 2007 08:29 PM (JQe3J)

23 Or, the parasite shall lose its host on May 20th.

Posted by: reagan80 at March 28, 2007 08:58 PM (I0gpu)

24 Egads; just when I thought it safe for the kids to come out and play again. Lock up the kids and the wives. Break out the assault weapons.

Posted by: shelly at March 29, 2007 07:12 PM (JQe3J)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Watch the whole thing, spread the word.

Posted by: annika at 02:00 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've watched 10 minutes so far and don't have time to see the rest tonight. Who put this together? Does it say at the end? I've often suspected that global warming hysteria is just like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Posted by: Joules at March 18, 2007 08:58 PM (u4CYb)

2 Oddly enough, when your previous article reviles Time Magazine for being biased, you've wholeheartedly swooned over this piece where one of the scientists presented as supporting its thesis stated the video was "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." But I can understand how persons who are not close to both sides of the issue can be swayed by such disinformation. This presents a very narrow skeptic perspective from the same old global warming critics, who previously used to say, "Global Warming is a LIE". Now they say, "Ok, it's warming, but to claim human influence is a LIE". And the majority of those have been funded by oil and coal companies. Some of the claims are wildly preposterous, such as the claim that volcanoes release many more times the amount of carbon dioxide that human activity does. From the USGS; "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 199 - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)." http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Over and over again as the main thrust of the video, they completely ignore the thorough explanation of the 1940-1975 cooling, something that Lindzen should be ashamed to have pretended not to know. There's so many goofs in this polemic that I will simply direct you to a debunking for futher scientific discussion. And not that tost of the time in the video is spent with non-climate scientists, such as : * Phillip Stott - Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', eg climate change or tropical ecology. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus on such issues. * Patrick Moore is not a scientist but an activist. * Nigel Lawson is a journalist who became a member of Parliament * Nigel Calder is a author, editor, and TV screenwriter, not a scientist. * Paul Driessen is lobbyist and currently a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. * James Shikwati is a Kenyan libertarian economist. * Piers Richard Corbyn is a British meteorologist, not a climatologist. He is best known for his controversial claims of an ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance through the study of solar activity, specifically sunspots. I can understand why you were drawn in by this video, because many conservatives feel as strongly about this as they do abortion; however, emotion should not be the process by which the science is vetted. And yes, I know you just love to yank my chain...

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 03:59 PM (h7Ciu)

3 ERRATA: "not that tost" should be "note that most"... My laptop screen is acting up, and I can only view pages in a tiny window.

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 04:02 PM (h7Ciu)

4 Thanks for the tour of that great bastion of academic knowledge,Wikipedia, Will. I wonder how many of the people who worked on those links you so graciously supplied lied about their credentials? And for all of you that like to casually surf the web, there are a ton of links out there that will take you through the lies, half-truths, and blatant propoganda that was Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 04:48 PM (jcmjk)

5 blu, why not list one of your URLS, so that we can examine one that you hold to be true, so that we can debunk it for you? And feel free to find fault with any of the "Swindle" bios, since you questioned the veracity of those who provided the information.

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 05:19 PM (h7Ciu)

6 Question the veracity of Wikipedia. Oh certainly not! Who in their right mind would question an open-source website that requires absolutely no credentials for posting. Certainly not I. Hey, didn't Al Gore invent Wikipedia?

Posted by: blu at March 19, 2007 05:29 PM (jcmjk)

7 Well since they haven't released the '07 IPCC report yet, just the Summary For Policy Makers which is created by gov't beauracrats and not scientists, we have to look at the '01 IPCC report for the actual science here that the man-made global warming crowd is relying on. Now if you made it through that incredibly long sentence, there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming. It is an mix of computer models, incomplete computer models, which say this warming shouldn't be normal, ergo man must be causing it. This is the only "evidence" for man's role in global warming. If anything we should focus on adapting rather than fool hardy attempts to mitigate what is a natural process. I agree we should find better power sources than the internal combustion engine and reliance on fossil fuels, but the global warming crowd is using propaganda to try to achieve this goal.

Posted by: Scof at March 19, 2007 07:44 PM (nE8Mg)

8 Very interesting vid with very interesting points. Much gravitas thanks to the preponderance of British accents. Thanks, A. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at March 19, 2007 11:24 PM (HSp2k)

9 Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute. And Scof, all we have of the movements of the Solar System is computer models based on observations. For that matter, the same goes for link between tobacco and cancer; there is no absolute proof, only overwhelming evidence.

Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 04:12 AM (h7Ciu)

10 Here ya go, Will. Happy reading. http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

Posted by: Frank at March 20, 2007 05:10 AM (fxGzi)

11 Give it up, Frank. Your mere links have no effect on our mighty platitudes. Like Kuato, we shall liberate Annika's mind from the arch-conservative camp. Before we're finished here, she'll be voting for Nader in no time! Now, do what Kuato commands! Let me feel it, peons!

Posted by: Swill at March 20, 2007 09:02 AM (I0gpu)

12 "Still waiting, blu, if you have anything substantial to contribute." Back at ya, Will. So far, you've managed to link to an open source, slacker website whose credibility has been called into question numerous times. It's fun playing the Will game: never respond with substantial thought - simply say that your opponents are wrong without debating specifics points and then say something about where their funding might come from. Your game is old, Will, and that's why nobody takes you seriously. Well, accept for you. No get back to that mirror so you can continue admiring yourself.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 09:37 AM (jcmjk)

13 Frank, http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm is just a rant site, no science (the 'author' is a Ruskie radiology scientist, no evidence of climate research), just bald assertions. http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html More extensive, and I will address this when I have time (running out the door to an embassy event). Still waiting, blu, even after you attack the messenger...

Posted by: will at March 20, 2007 02:04 PM (GzvlQ)

14 Hey Will, One of your global warming pimps took part in a Waxman's media circus. (The fact that the taxpayers have to pay for this crap ought to offend every American.Gotta give the Dems credit, though, they know that they have the MSM in their pocket and they use it will.) Dr. Hansen, political activist and global warming whore, who likened the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. The same man who openly campaigned for Dems; has given 1400 interviews pushing his point of view while working within the government; and recepient of a quarter million bucks from Dem activist, Teresa Heinz Kerry's, foundation. (You know, one of those non-political institutions with no political agenda or bias.) Darrell Issa tore this pimp a new rear-end and called him out as the political activist that he is. This guy has spent the last few years accusing the gov't of "politicizing" science all the while setting a standard for it. The global warming movement is nothing more than a well-excuted marketing campaign.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 03:58 PM (jcmjk)

15 Full disclosure: I'm not typically an Issa fan - for reasons associated to the GWOT - and sure wish somebody else would have stepped and took the pimp to task.

Posted by: blu at March 20, 2007 04:00 PM (jcmjk)

16 http://www.ncpa [dot] org/ba/ba230.html This is a 1997 article that is grossly out of date and easy to refute; "Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming." This is in fact true and has been addressed in countless postings here. Even the Lindzen/Spencer/Christy skeptics now readily admit it, though at one time called it a lie. "Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. " Again, out of date, as likely less than 1% of climate researchers deny anthropogenic warming. The article mentions the Meteorlogical Society and the American Geophysical Union specifically as disbelieving. Here are current statements by those organizations; Meteorlogical Society (2003): "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems." American Geophysical Union (2003): "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects." "Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming." From the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Summary: "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. " (which confirm the models' predictions of warming) "Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems." They talk about the lack of increase in hurricane activity, though this was to change dramatically after 1997. From the 2007 IPCC Assessment Summary: "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs." Conclusion: This article has been proven to be inaccurate in all of its claims. Little to no scientific research was referenced, so it was little more than a policy puff piece now discarded on the rubbish heap of history. Scof, "there is no "evidence" that man is causing this warming. Your claim is unsupported. Even the majority of the 1%-2% of those scientists identified as skeptics now agree that humans are influencing the climate, though they are simply saying 'we don't know how much'. Blu, When will you learn that ideological rants provide no basis for a serious discussion of scientific issues? Why should anyone care what Issa (or any pundit) says on this subject?

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 04:49 AM (GzvlQ)

17 More debunking of 'debunkers': http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm This is just an opinion piece published in the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology with no references to scientific findings (and rife through and through with fallacies itself). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts This finally gets to the points of "An Inconvenient Truth". Let's take the points one at a time; most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. What kind of claim is this?? How much? What will be submerged? Hardly a debunking of the movie. Gore shows that many mountain glaciers are melting away all around the world—glaciers in Alaska, Europe and Mount Kilimanjaro—are responding to increased warming. (Though the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro seem to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns rather than to increased heat. Of course, it is possible that the shift in rainfall is the result of global warming.) Is this 'debunking'? Very weak to non-existent. Global glacier mass balance has dropped significantly in the last 50 years. See the data and a striking graph of the data. "The temperatures in central Siberia are thought to have increased by 3 degrees Celsius over the past 40 years. A Russian study in 2004 found that the average temperatures in Siberia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 6000 years ago warmed up by 3 to 9 degrees celcius in the winter, and by 2 to 6 degrees celcius in the summer. Due to changes in the earth's orbit which affect how much sunlight reaches the surface, pretty much the entire Arctic was warmer than now 6000 years ago." The Russian study was not referenced, so we have no idea of its source, methods, or overall veracity, hence this is an empty claim. "Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. " The report is not referenced, yet this article wanders off track by referring to bear populations in general, not just polar bears. And the 6000 year claim from the one Russian 'paper' was not substantiated above. Building houses of cards with shaky findings does not lead to conclusive findings. "Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists." I would agree with this. The models predicted it, and it seems to be happening, though the data is not completely out of the margins of errors yet, so there is not a consensus among key hurricane researchers in the US. "Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998." Not much of a point here, especially since the article does not contend with the point that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Trends are what are important, and the trends are clear. That's all I have time for now (I really must work for a living), but its clear that much of the 'debunking' that's been going on is more directed at public opinion that at addressing the science itself. And that, my friend blu, is called 'spin'.

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 05:24 AM (GzvlQ)

18 Guys, Go read the entire piece. Goebbels, errr, I mean Will, cherry-picked his response as you will see. The piece destryoys Gore's propoganda piece in a very detailed and devastating fashion. And this is just one of many that I've seen. By now, you should all know Will's "m.o.", so ignore him. BTW, op-eds rarely if ever cite references.

Posted by: blu at March 21, 2007 10:21 AM (j8oa6)

19 Anybody can blather rhetorically and claim to "destroy" their opponent; having solid references to back oneself up with is required just to get in the door of a scientific debate. And an op-ed piece is just an opinion statement intended to sway readership. If unsupported opinions are what you are basing your argument on, then those claims are groundless until shown otherwise. Which might be fine in a debate between ideologues in politics, religion, or philosphy, but they're not the subject domain at hand.

Posted by: will at March 21, 2007 12:46 PM (GzvlQ)

20 the scientists are right! Global Warming is real. Here is proof: in 1955, Ansel Adams took this picture of Half Dome. Now look at it today! Where's the snow?

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 07:11 PM (lMqjc)

21 News flash: the scientists have discovered the real cause of global warming!

Posted by: annika at March 21, 2007 07:33 PM (lMqjc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My mom gave me a gift subscription to Time Magazine last year. I've tried, I've really tried to read it every week, but it's damn near impossible. It's like they deliberately try to insult me every week. I know it's the thought that counts, but I think I'm going to have to cancel my free subscription.

The problem is that Time is a liberal op-ed magazine, masquerading as a non-partisan news source. I could respect them, and even read it occasionally, if they would just admit the truth. But to do so might reduce the effectiveness of the subliminal propaganda they spit out each week. There's no way to avoid it, unless you stop grocery shopping and visiting the dentist.

If I read something in the Village Voice, or Mother Jones, or the LA Weekly, saying "all conservatives are evil" I can take it with a grain of salt, it's no big deal. But when Time Magazine, in a "news" cover story starts out like this, I get mad.

George Bush's sense of humor has always run more to frat-house gag than art-house irony, so he may not have appreciated the poetic justice any more than the legal justice on display in the Libby verdict.

Or, to be more precise, the Cheney verdict.

You know, there's a lot of folks in this country who voted for the President, and like the President. There's a lot of folks who really like Dick Cheney, and we're not stupid. We understand that there are people who don't think so, but it's insulting to read a supposedly unbiased news magazine calling the Vice President a criminal, as if I'm supposed to agree. Like saying the Dow was at 11000, or the temperature in Minneapolis yesterday was 53°.

A few weeks ago I tossed the magazine with the pro-abortion cover in the trash without even opening it. I didn't open the one that asked "Does sending more soldiers to Iraq make any sense?" either. I knew the answer to that question. I also knew their answer, and that it was different from mine. But next week's cover really takes the cake: Ronald Reagan crying. First of all, they have no right to touch, let alone re-touch that great man's picture. Second, I simply don't trust them to write about conservative discontent without it being a 3000 word essay on schadenfreude.

And it's not even well written, or well reported. Lately they've taken to using introductory phrases like "here's how..." and "here's why..." As in "With the U.S. tied down in Iraq, a new superpower has arrived. Here's how to deal with it." Or, "The Iraq Study Group says it's time for an exit strategy, Why Bush will listen." Of course, when the President rightly ignores the ISG's report, Time ignores its faulty prediction. But that doesn't stop them from continuing to use that annoying phraseology. Another example: "As the U.S. strikes al-Qaeda, a new government tries to restore order. Here's what it will take."

That phrase bugs me so much because it's like they're assuming some sort of know-it-all status, without ever demonstrating to me that they know anything. When you're wrong as often as Time's writers are, they shouldn't be so presumptuous.

The Time story intro has become so formulaic, I could probably write a script for it if I knew how to write code. All you do is take some story that is happening, insert some anti-Republican or anti-war spin, then promise the reader that you'll have all the answers in the article by saying "here's how."

Here are some examples, just off the top of my head:

A story about JetBlue delays might be introduced like this:

While JetBlue executives struggle to regain passengers' confidence in the wake of storm caused delays, experts say global warming could damage airline stocks even further? Here's how you can protect your portfolio.

With the U.S. bogged down in Iraq, new questions surround pre-war intelligence as Valerie Plame wows Congress. Here's why her testimony will doom the Bush admistration.

Millions of Americans have fallen in love with the new Wii gaming platform. Here's how Alberto Gonzales intends to ruin their fun.

Posted by: annika at 10:56 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 5 kb.

If anyone is smart enough to capitalize on it, the big issue that may decide the next presidential election is not the war. It's the mortgage crisis. I say this because it's a pocketbook issue that will affect every voter regardless of whether they rent, own, or live with their parents. The combination of balooning payments and falling house values has a wide ranging effect on business as well as ordinary people. It could hurt all of us because the long awaited housing crash just might bring on another recession.

And guess what, we've known it was coming for at least five years but like with the dot coms, nobody wanted to say anything because too many people were making money. Everybody and their brother wanted to get in on the housing boom, and lenders were all too happy to throw cash at them. Realtors weren't going to say anything. They were like, "don't worry man, you're equity is going to skyrocket." And the lenders just said, "hey, when the adjustable hits, you can always refinance."

But as I watched this all unfold from the sidelines, I always predicted that it couldn't go on forever. Didn't the 1929 crash happen because of easy credit? And there's no way people should be spending 50% of their take home pay on a mortgage. I thought the rule of thumb was 25%, one third tops. How is your average Californian supposed to afford $450,000 for a first home? Just because some crooked lender will give you the loan with no money down, doesn't mean you should take it. But people do, because everybody's doing it.

Sacramento is a prime example. I read somewhere that this city was second only to Palm Beach, Florida in overblown housing prices. My boyfriend, God bless him, did everything wrong. When we first started going out, he was in the process of dumping a house that he had bought at the very top of the market, when properties were selling almost the day they got listed. He put it up for sale a year later, just after everything slowed down. There were about six houses with his exact same floor plan for sale within a radius of a couple of blocks. Luckily, after four months of waiting, and hardly any lookers, he sold to an investment buyer who ended up renting the house. Christopher bought at the crest and sold at the trough. Thus ended his foray into the "get rich through home ownership" scheme.

If my boyfriend hadn't sold when he did, the value of his house was in danger of falling below the amount of his mortgage. He ended up with a tiny profit, but lots of people aren't going to be so lucky. When the adjustable rate goes through the roof, and people aren't able to sell because of falling prices, look out. A lot of folks are going to get hurt.

(I also wondered what was going to happen to all those Gulf Coast homeowners, especially in New Orleans. I imagine there are going to be a lot of foreclosures down there, if there haven't already been. What if you got screwed by the insurance company, the bank still wants their money, and they don't care if you're living out of a trailer (or not) and you still haven't got your job at the liquor store back because that place went out of business too?)

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I think the mortgage crisis is going to be a real problem. Hillary thinks so too, and savvy politician that she is, she's already made it a campaign issue. This is exactly the type of issue that Democrats win elections on because the conservative response is usually to let the free market sort itself out. People don't want to hear that. If things get really bad, Hillary will score points being the first one to call for a homeowner's bail-out. Predictably, she faults Bush for doing nothing while sub-prime lenders dug us into this hole. And you know what, I can't say she's wrong about that.

Posted by: annika at 04:36 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

WTF?

Please please let Edwards win the nomination.

Posted by: annika at 02:18 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

You know who you are.

Look, I like Newt. Don't get me wrong. But you know what I like more? A Republican in the White House.

In the latest Gallup poll, which of the top candidates from both parties is the only one whose unfavorable rating is higher than their favorable rating. I'll give you a hint. It's not Hillary.

Okay, well maybe Newt hasn't been out in public enough. He should write some books. Check. He should go on Fox News. Check. He should call Hannity's show. Oh, check.

Okay, well at least there's twenty months between now and election day. That's plenty of time for Newt to change people's minds, right?

Oh, well, except that he's decided to save money by waiting until September before he gets in the race. And with a bunch of big states moving their primaries up to February 5th, that gives Newt only five months to change his image.

Okay, well maybe Newt can use the time between now and September to ramp up his public image. Do a full court press on the public. Show everybody what a great guy he is. He should start today. Give an interview with Dobson or somebody.

Oh, he did? Ouch. That's not exactly moving in the right direction, but it's a start, I guess.

Sorry Newt lovers. Stick a fork in the salamander, he's done.

h/t Hot Air

Posted by: annika at 09:59 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.